Topic: Iraq
This Article is Illegal (or Christine Smith, You GO GIRL! Bob Barr's a Loser) Being Antiwar is an Illegal Act. Sorry, no Compromises with my Liberty. Fush Buck.by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 29, 2008
I started writing Antiwar articles on Nolan Chart way back in February ‘08, and the whole time I’ve just had this feeling that I was doing something Illegal in my opposition to this decade’s Invasion Wars (Afghani and Iraqi). I don’t mean wrong per my own morality – just Illegal. Yeah, there’s the First Amendment’s ‘Freedom of Speech’ and Thomas Jefferson’s "Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism," and some mushy JFK quotes, but guess what? The people who wrote the Constitution are Dead and JFK was Shot. George "Dubya" Bush is President Now. And that means if you Dissent against the war, He can take all your Property and toss You in Jail. Without trial, all he has to do is say so. And he already did this a year ago.
How? Well read the July 2007 Executive Order from whitehouse.gov here or see the full text below and decide for yourself. If I am incorrect here, please let me know - I am just an ordinary dude, not an expert in lawyerish Legalese, a more professional attempt was attempted to dissect this here. The Order states:
"any person… to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people... [will have their property seized or blocked. And] Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited."
So in plain English, with "An Act" (and I do note the ignoble use of "OR acts of violence") deemed by the Bush administration to undermine the efforts of the Armed Forces of the United States to Occupy Iraq and Kill Iraqis (aka "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq" or "provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"), build permanent Military Bases and take control of their Oil (aka "promote economic reconstruction"), or god-allah-yahweh-buddha-bush forbid dissent against the lovely democratic government we’ve crammed down their throats (aka "threatening the peace or stability of… the Government of Iraq"), they can simply freeze all your Property. Therefore, all of my Property can now be stolen by the Government since I wrote this. Even if you just pose"a significant risk of committing," aka thoughtcrime.
Skip the Legalese, in American English, "Damn Dude, Bush Can Do WHAT"?
And make no mistake about it, the Government could crush me (or you?) like a bug. I guess I’d try to use the Constitution as a shield (See the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments), or the 1886 US Supreme Court case (from back when Lawyers didn’t use such complicated Legalese) Norton v. Shelby that states "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." But, c'mon now, that won't work!
Since Bush’s Executive Order violates the very Constitution that he swore to protect and obey, I will not obey his edicts since constitutionally it has no validity. However, that won’t make my Property any less stolen – its sort of like paying your income taxes to avoid jailtime even though the income tax is unconstitutional. Can we please Impeach (Cheney first though!) Bush before Executive Directive 51 is invoked by "Another Attack" from Terrorists and the Constitution is Lost Forever?
Well, now I have to defend the article title to comply with site rules. In my last couple articles, I tried to attack Antiwar Apathy using humor, challenging General Petraeus to fisticuffs, and with a library of seriously funny Onion links. (They are hilarious, check them out!). This approach didn’t work. Both articles were my all-time lows in terms of reader views, despite my best efforts to engage my personal Facebook and Nolan Chart audiences. Being virulently Antiwar seems to be unpopular, but if you just apathetically mumble "yeah, I am against the war" that’s OK, since, After All you didn’t have to Show your Children the DeadBodies at your Memorial Day Picnic. So, admittedly, I resorted to a headline ploy to get libertarians to read this article. Sorry about that.
Barr. Knowing barely anything about the fellow, for some reason I was immediately suspicious his purpose is to implode the Ron Paul Revolution. Well I did some research at his website and a few other places. Here are Two Simple Facts.
1. Bob Barr Voted for the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)
Writers here and here claim that Barr did this so he could nobly add a 5-year Sunset clause during the editing stage, and so save all of us from losing our Liberties Forever. Well, first, 5 years is a long time too! Why not 6 months? Second, I reject this on its principle. Why would you compromise the Liberty of your constituents in such a manner? The more egregious the offending Act was, the higher the chances the electorate would clamor to repeal it. And he said he was sorry later! Great, tell that to Jose Padilla, US Citizen and former Enemy Combatant, who is in prison, but spent a couple of years (2 years is a long time too!) in solitary confinement without trial or lawyer access. I don't care if you like this or not, Bob Barr shares responsibility for this incredible human rights violation.
2. Bob Barr Voted for the Iraq War
The sentiment here is that Barr was tricked like the rest of us. So if he hasn’t read the Constitution (Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 10) and is willing to authorize Preemptive War against a sovereign nation just because it allegedly has Weapons of Mass Destruction, what kind of President will he make? By this logic we should attack Israel, Russia, or Colombia too. Give him a chance, some write. I say NO! Overall Politicians are a slippery bunch, that’s why you use their past voting records to judge them. And if Clinton, McCain, and Barr were all tricked into voting Aye, why wasn’t Ron Paul fooled? Where’d we go?
So in summary, Libertarians are a Strange Bunch, nominating a headline-getter to advance the party. Sorry, no respect from me. Wistful thinking, but I hope the Libertarian Party implodes and sets off a chain reaction to the Republicans and then the Democrats. A clean slate to Restore our Republic on would be nice.
I Stand, With or Without You, in Open Rebellion against the United States Government’s Preemptive Wars against the Peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Unconditional Withdrawal ASAP are the only terms I am willing to accept. This is my generation's Vietnam. Comments are welcome in the space provided below. You can even give me a Thumbs up for risking all my property in writing this article. May my trial be swift (oh wait, I won’t get one!)
In Life, all you can do is toss proverbial Pebbles (I prefer Bricks but I am not that strong yet) into a Calm Pond, Causing Ripples to your Family, to your Friends, to your Society, to your Country and to your World. Then you get to Walk Off to your Demise. C'est la vie, such is life. Words to remember me by when I am gone.
For Peace and Liberty!
Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
Preemptive War and Freedom Video Clips Published: May 16, 2008 Sick of war? A countdown collection of videos centering on the Bush Administration's unAmerican policy of Preemptive War followed by a collection videos centered on Freedom and Anti-War. Maybe you missed a clip or two. Are you Insane like Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, Mike Gravel or are you unAmerican like Cheney, Clinton, McCain, and Obama?
Jesse Ventura Joins the Ron Paul Revolution Published: April 13, 2008 Jesse Ventura Blitzes the Media, Saying to WAKE UP! Includes Support of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Ideas. A Lemming Reports.
We the People versus the Might of the US Government Published: March 2, 2008 What do the experiences of SAS trooper Ben Griffin, Hope Steffey, and Jose Padilla all have in common? They show the Might of Government is overwhelming Right. We the People want Justice!
Saudi Arabia: The True Cause of the Iraq War? Published: February 13, 2008 Saudi Arabia as the proximate cause and US foreign policy/oil as the underlying causes of 9/11 and the Iraq War? Anyways, Leave Iraq and Stop the American Military Empire. I agree with Ron Paul and Stephen Colbert.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake, the Champion of the Constitution is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Just out of curiousity, what would you have done in Barr's place on the lovely Patriot Act? Voted no and surrendered the opportunity to influence it at all(It was absolutely going to pass anyway)-I don't fault him on that one-but I do have some serious issues.
That being said, if no-compromise is the only option, and you are in the minority-well, I wish it were Bush getting the action if you know what I mean.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-05-29 21:07:12
Mike - thanks again for reading! Interesting question you ask, and while I certainly don't claim to be a prima-donna Purist or really even a pacifist for that matter, I do strongly feel I have the moral and even legal (constitutional) high ground where the wars and civil liberties are concerned. Perhaps you were being rhetorical, but I will answer anyways.
If you transported me back to when the bill was passed, the answer is kinda moot - back then I didn't give a damn about much of anything, I was too busy having fun to care much. But I won't dodge the question, I did want the "terrorists" brought to justice, so I probably would have done like most of Congress, and not have read the bill and passed it. Even if I read it, I probably wouldn't have understood what it meant.
However, if you took the 2008 Jake back there, I would have done exactly as I wrote above - made a formal lucid statement onto the record to try to convince other members to vote with me, voted No and all the time shouted out to the media, my constituents and anyone else that would listed that the act was evil, completely unnecessary while violating the Constitution and stripping Americans of their civil liberties. I would have read the bill into the Congressional record as well (sounds like they only allot certain time, so I might have to hire a speed reader like that MicroMachine guy when I was a kid) and made everyone in the room listen to me read it so they were semi-aware - sort of like downsizedc.org's Read the Bills Act. I would have tried to send it back for revising since the language was too confusing and hard for the average person to understand. I would have tried everything possible to stop it. And I don't think I would last very long as a politician.
I still think my point is valid. All you've REALLY got is a politician's track record when you decide to vote, these intangibles like "well he felt bad and was sorry" just doesn't cut it. If I hire someone for my company and they perform unsatisfactorily but say they were really sorry afterwards, guess what? It wouldn't make them any less Fired.
Barr can still get my trust, I do have an open mind - now that he's an official Presidential Nominee, how about traveling to Iraq and getting infront of a tank? Or going to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran and personally apologize in all of the major city centers squares with a translator and a bullhorn that he rues his votes due to all the death, destruction they caused? Tell a few parents he's sorry he killed their kids, or tell the kids he's sorry he killed their parents. And if elected President he will stop the empire and bring peace - by leaving. That might convince me!
After all, with great power comes great responsibility - oh shoot, Spiderman already said that:)
I read over the document. I interpreted it more towards establishing ground rules for dissention - as in, I don't think it was specifically targeted at a person or persons disagreeing with the policies in Iraq and/or the administration. To me it seemed to be aimed more at physical plans to intentionally disrupt peace in Iraq. (By the way, when did Iraq become 'peaceful'?) The White House couldn't enforce such an order even if they wanted to, if you consider the monumental and historic opposition to the administration and it's foreign policies - with voices as small as individual bloggers to main stream media such as commentators on NPR. My guess is it's aimed more towards the Cindy Sheenan's that may cause unrest due to her large audience.
I think Bush and Mr. Cheney have done more damage in other areas than this, although it's still questionable.
It may be true that the only thing to judge a politician by is their record-if they are ever going to be in office.
Bob Barr is not. Ever.
That means that the only thing that is important is the things that his says he is for now-what you are voting for, rather than the potential for betrayal.
Honestly, there is probably more chance of Martian invasion than a Barr presidency-that's not the point. Opening people's eyes is the point.
Don't take this the wrong way, but are you planning an apology trip, since you were too busy having fun than to worry about war when it started?-You are part of the government as a citizen you know-perhaps a letter from you might have helped-it's doubtful, granted, but it would certainly not have hurt.
Keep at it, support Barr or not, but keep at it.
The long term is key here. Think past this year, etc.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-05-30 16:11:47
Mike -
Thanks, point taken. I live abroad and trust me I am not a hypocrite when discussing the war over here. My apathetic viewpoint was changed in part due to some Iraqis I have met - just because trees are falling/people are dying everyday in Iraq, and you can't hear them die in the US doesn't make them any less dead. In a way too the column is a bit of an apology. And actually think about it - an 'apology' trip like I outlined above would be a great way for Barr to have a chance at winning - think about the publicity but also the humility/courage required to do it.
So the counterpoint is - the difference between Barr and I is that he had a vote and he used it to promote war. The difference between Barr and I is that he should have been informed enough to know better. or 好马不吃回头草
Let's see who the options are first before voting in November. Vote however you like. My vote goes to whomever I feel can best execute the oath of office, I honestly don't really care what they "stand for" I won't vote for Barr just because he "stands for" liberty, just like I won't vote for Obama because he "stands for" black America or Clinton "stands for" women or McCain "stands for"...... at a loss here, is it war?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
