From Ken Adachi <Editor>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/voteourtraitors27oct06.shtml
October 27, 2006

Lately, I've been reading William L. Shirer's monumental 1960 book titled The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The parallel between the stratagems employed by Hitler and his cabal in Germany in the 1930's and what is happening in America today is rather remarkable. The Germans were being preoccupied by the Nazis with propaganda tactics that produced fear and loathing towards a ballyhooed 'enemy', the communists and Jews, while the real enemy of the German people were the domestic traitors, in positions of high political power, who were plotting with Hitler (or his rivals) to eliminate the fourteen year old Weimar Republic, its constitution, and the rule of law. In its place, there was substituted a total dictatorship operating within a ruthless totalitarian government which bound every citizen of Germany under its complete control from the age of six forward. There was no area of normal social intercourse or personal decision that was free of government involvement and dominance. If you didn't comply fully with whatever dictates the government demanded of you, your job, or your children, you were arrested, possilby beaten, perhaps sent to a concentration camp or simply liquidated. There was zero tolerance for disobedience in anything!. Such is the reality of life in a completely fascist, totalitarian state.

It's amazing how quickly the German Republic went from a constitutional democracy in December of 1932 to a full blown, one party dictatorship by mid summer of 1933. The whirlwind began with Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on January 30, 1933.

The Reichstag parliamentary building was torched 28 days later on February 27 by a SA leader named Karl Ernst and a small group of storm troopers under orders from Hermann Goering. A half-witted Dutch communist patsy (and known pyromaniac) named Marinus van der Lubbe was set up to start a small fire of his own in the Reichstag that night using his shirt for kindling. Starting around 9:05 pm, the huge Reichstag building grew into a blazing inferno within ten minutes due to the large quantity of gasoline and chemicals spread around by Ernst and his commandos. At 9:30 there was a tremendous explosion and the great central chamber was totally enveloped in flames. The fire quickly raced out of control despite the efforts of the fire fighters and soon only the walls of the gutted building were still standing.

Goering used the burning of the Reichstag as 'proof' that the imminent "communist revolution" had begun in Germany and shouted out loud at the scene of the fire that "This is the beginning of the Communist Revolt, they will start their attack now! Not a moment must be lost."

Hitler himself, then picked up the invective with: "There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. The German people will not tolerate leniency. Every communist official will be shot where he is found. Everybody in league with the Communists must be arrested. There will also no longer be leniency for social democrats."

The next day, Hitler convinced the aging President of Germany, Paul von Hindenburg, to sign an emergency decree "for the Protection of the People and the State" suspending the seven sections of the constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties. With the "emergency" decree in hand, Hitler could now arrest anybody he decided was a threat to the State. This, of course, immediately eliminated the 81 seats held by the communist in the Reichstag.

The Reichstag would be asked to pass an "enabling act" conferring on Hitler's cabinet exclusive legislative powers for four years. Simply put, the Reichstag, the Parliament of Germany, would vote itself out of power. This required a two-thirds majority vote as this act necessitated a change in the constitution. To assure compliance, the new Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, hit on the idea of opening the first Reichstag of the Third Reich in the Garrison Church at Potsdam, the great shrine of Prussia, where laid the bones of Frederick the Great 

The date of March 21 was carefully chosen to fall on the anniversary of the opening of the first Reichstag of the Second Reich by Otto von Bismark in 1871. With great pomp and even greater drama, Hitler accepted the blessings given in a short speech by Hindenburg and bowed low to the fully uniformed Great Field Marshal in a show of deep humility and common purpose for German unification. With flash bulbs popping and cameras rolling, the whole of Germany (and the world) would soon know that the hugely respected Hindenburg and the new Chancellor were of one mind and one purpose.

The real Hitler, however, would emerge two days later, on March 23, in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin where the Reichstag convened for the vote on the Enabling Act. The aisles of the theater were lined with tough looking SA Brownshirts, clearly intended to intimidate and cow anyone who thought of opposing the Act. The precise title of the Enabling Act was the "Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich." In its five short paragraphs, it took the power of legislation, including control of the budget, approval of treaties with foreign states, and the initiating of constututional amendments, away from Parliament and handed it over to Hitler's cabinet for a period of four years. It further stated that the laws enacted by Hitler's cabinet were to be drafted by the Chancellor himself and they "might deviate from the constitution." Incredibly, it added that no laws were to "affect the position of the Reichstag" and that the powers of the President remained "undisturbed." Hitler stressed these last two points in his speech to the deputies assembled in the ornate opera house. The uncharacteristically restrained Chancellor told the deputies:

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures. Neither the existence of the Reichstag nor that of the Reichsrat is menaced. The position and rights of the President remain unaltered...The separate existence of the federal states will not be done away with. The rights of the churches will not be diminished and their relationships to the State will not be modified. The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one."

(Within two months, every promise made in the above statement was reversed. Hitler eliminated every protection he promised to uphold.)

Amid the roar of SA storm troopers outside the theater yelling "Full power, or else!", the leader of the Social Democrats, Otto Wells, stood up to defy Hitler's feigned modesty and rank falsity. He said:

"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."

Enraged, Hitler jumped to his feet and allowed his true spirit to reveal itself:

"You come late, but yet you come! [he shouted]...You are no longer needed...The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink. Your death knell has sounded...I do not want your votes. Germany will be free, but not through you! {raucus applause].

The Center Party, under Monsignor Kaas, was more accommodating. He demanded a written promise from Hitler that he would respect the President's power of veto. Hitler obliged by simply given him a verbal assurance before the vote, but the written promise was never to be. Accepting the word of a liar, the Monsignor added his party's votes to those of the Nazi deputies to give a total of 441 Yes votes, providing the needed two-thirds majority, over the 84 No votes of the Social Democrats. The Nazi deputies sprang to their feet shouting and stamping deliriously. The SA storm troopers lining the aisles joined in to sing the Nazi Horst Wessel song:

"Raise high the flags! Stand rank on rank together. Storm troopers march with steady, quiet tread..."

Within 51 days of being appointed Reich Chancellor, Hitler had now secured total dictatorial power over Germany. The Parliament had turned over its constitutional authority to Hitler and in so doing, committed suicide. Althouigh it continued on in a purely perfuntory and meaningless role, its members were now all hand-picked by the Nazi Party and there were no more real elections. It was the Enabling Act alone which formed the legal basis for Hitler's dictatorship.

It should come as no surprise to the reader that the purpose for revisiting these scenes from February and March of 1933 in Germany has a worrisome parallel with what has taken place in America on Capitol Hill and the Oval Office in September and October of 2006. The congress of the United States, dominated by individuals with greater loyalty and allegiance to George W. Bush and his cabal than to the U.S. Constitution and the American people, passed a bill that allows the President to have anyone that he deems to be a threat to the State (an "enemy combatant") to be arrested and detained-indefinitely- without recourse to a trial, legal representation, or even having charges brought against him. For good measure, on the same day he signed that nifty plank of the U.S. version of the Enabling Act, he signed another bill into law, the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007", that allows the deployment of military forces, including National Guard, anywhere in America, for anything that the President calls an "emergency" without the agreement of Governors, legislators, or congress. In other words, it's the sort of power that a bona fide dictator would employ under "emergency" conditions. Is the picture becoming clearer?

We are living in a country headed by men who are steering this nation into a fascist dictatorship. We've been given an utterly fabricated "War on Terror" and the 9/11 World Trade Center and Pentagon "attacks" that are as contrived and bogus as Goering's Reichstag fire. If we allow the traitors within our congress to behave with the same acquiescence and compliance shown by 441 members of the Reichstag on March 23 of 1933, then we will suffer the SAME fate and untold misery experienced by the German people under Hitler.

While we still have a national legislature, you MUST act this November to remove every sitting United States Senator who voted Yes on the Patriot Act or voted for its renewal in March of 2006. There was only one senator, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who voted against the Patriot Act in October of 2001. Only one U.S. semator remembered his oath and obligation to uphold the U.S. Constitution in all matters placed before him .

You must also vote out of office every House member who voted for the 2001 Patriot Act or the March 2, 2006 Patriot Act Renewal, H.R. 3199 (House 280 Yea-138, Nay) or these latest acts of treason cited above which are setting the stage for a complete loss of constitutional government and the end of the United States as a free nation.

If your U.S. senator or House representative is listed on either the 2001 or 2006 lists of congressmen who voted in favor of the US Patriot Act then you are dealing with a traitor who has violated his oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution as numerous provisions of The Patriot Act are in DIRECT violation of the United States Constitution.

Whoever is the opposing candidate, whether he be Democrat, or Independent, or Green Party, who is most likely to win against the treasonous incumbent, then you must vote for that person.

Don't throw your vote away on a candidate who says all the right things, but hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the Enabling incumbent.

You must vote out the traitors in congress who voted for the (Enabling) Patriot Act.

November 7, 2006 may be your last opportunity to do so.

Heaven help us if we don't act to save this republic.

Ken Adachi

© Copyright 2006 Educate-Yourself.org  All Rights Reserved.

---

UN Official: US Terror Law May Violate International Treaties

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1027-08.htm

Martin Scheinin, the United Nations' expert on protecting human rights in the fight against terrorism, said the Military Commissions Act signed into law earlier this month by U.S. President George W. Bush contains provisions "incompatible" with U.S. obligations to adhere to treaties on human rights and humanitarian law.

"One of the most serious aspects of this legislation is the power of the president to declare anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge as an 'unlawful enemy combatant' - a term unknown in international humanitarian law," said Scheinin, a legal expert from Finland.

As a result, he said, those detainees are subject to the jurisdiction of a military commission composed of military officers - rather than a civilian court of law.

He also deplored the denial of the habeas corpus rights of foreigners - including legal, permanent U.S. residents - to challenge the legality of their detention, "in manifest contradiction with" the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the U.S. ratified in 1992.

Another concern, Scheinin said, is the denial of detainees' rights to see evidence that could exonerate them if the evidence is deemed classified. That, he said, "severely impedes the right to a fair trial."

***

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Written by Frank Morales
Thursday, 26 October 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.

(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

Photo source: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110478.jpgPresident George W. Bush contains provisions "incompatible" with U.S. obligations to adhere to treaties on human rights and humanitarian law.

---

Comments

'Corporate Entities' versus The November 7th Congressional Election (Nov. 4, 2006)
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/votingversuscorpentities04nov06.shtml

Another "Why Bother to Vote?' Letter (Nov. 5, 2006)
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/anotherwhybothertovoteletter05nov06.shtml