Friday, January 23, 2009

Who Is "The Enemy"?

The US Constitution requires that every president take "the oath of office". That oath is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
(Article II, Section 1). The words "enemy", whether domestic or foreign, do not appear in the oath.

Job one then, the only thing a president swears or affirms he or she will do, is "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

It would seem then that the enemy is anyone who would damage the US Constitution. An "enemy combatant", by extension, would be anyone who would damage the US Constitution by combat.

The federal court in Washington is giving the new Obama administration an opportunity to define the term.

The Bush regime defined it as anyone the president says is an "enemy combatant" whether they did combat against the US Constitution or not. Not so clear.

What is clear is that a person can obviously be an enemy or an enemy combatant, depending on whether or not combat is involved.

I have a hunch that the new Obama administration will say "enemy combatant" is any non-citizen who seeks to harm the US Constitution by combat.

There is another part of constitutional law that deals with citizens who would take up arms against the US Constitution. It is called treason.

Treason is mentioned in Art. I, Sec. 6, Art. II, Sec. 4, and is defined as:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted
(Article III, Section 3). Since Article III is the one that deals with the Judicial Branch, the courts, it would seem that such behaviour is for the courts to handle, not for military commissions or tribunals to mumbo jumbo through.

The military is for military matters, and the courts are for judicial matters.

Stay focused.


  1. Man, when you don't know who the enemy is you are paranoid.

    The low grade "progressive" blogs like We Love Bushie Anyway and Big Ego's Big Nothing are like dogs in shock.

    They bite anything that moves and lick anything that looks like something to lick. And with dogs, you know where that goes.

  2. Hey Anon ... both of those blogs are actually "moderated" by Neuf Neuf ... so don't take it too seriously ... because that wannabe agent has admitted to having medical problems and being paranoid lately.

    And when JAMA is your big hope, you really can't have much hope.

    So stick to Yes We Can, Yes We Did, and Yes We Will.

    Leave them to their feigned enlightenment and misery.

  3. These new picks by Obama for officials at the DOJ will help turn it from The Department of Just Us into The Department of Justice as it should be.

  4. I'm almost ready to shed the anonymous. My first inkling that not all was right in BradVille was when gosh forbid I outed a source for being disinfo. It was the one saying 80,000 US Soldiers were dead from Iraq Wars.

    I'm not saying numbers don't get fudged. But when is it a crime to question sources?

    Brad agreed with me. Then the moderator rumoured to be Mike Rivero's niece went after both me and Brad. That's when Brad must have had to go for one of his rehab sessions for carpal tunnel syndrome.

    Then my cyberstalkers showed up, and Mike Rivero's niece let them attack me despite some public image of the place having rules. I broke them for having difficulty accepting Phil's claim to be able to control the weather with his mind. But the stalkers were allowed to attack me with no Barbara Feldman protection.

    Then I wrote to Bradley. Funny how Brad takes such interest in us newbies with personal emails, but that's another topic. I had an ip from my own "tinfoil" place that led directly to one of these cybersmearers. Brad confirmed the ip. That must have freaked him out, that I had that kind of info.

    The bottom line is that one cannot succeed on the enemy's turf. Is Brad legit? I now doubt it. I don't buy any of that Brett Strawman Kimberlin machinations. Where is the proof that Mike Connell was ever threatened by Karl Rove?

    I'd be the first to blast that story as far and wide as any humble nobody could, if only it was believable.

    Now how does someone like Alexandrovna get the idea that she can lie about Brett Kimberlin and say he is an exonerated, ex-political prisoner?

    Who is the enemy? I have my theories about those to be found on the internet, and the ones I know about aren't to be found on the freeper blogs. They are to be found on websites I actually have been drawn to.

    I see you have RawStory as one of your prominent links. Should I cease and desist?

  5. The first anon wasn't me by the way. I am used to forums. But once I figure it out, I'll start providing some linkage when I can.

    I would like to see some law and order supplied to the internet, nothing draconian, but something along the line where victims such as Violet Blue can get restraining orders, protection, etc. from the likes of Ben Burch.

    I have had my own situation. First they ignore you. Then they attack. I'd like to fight back. I would like to sue the apparently rogue DoD/intel forces who have been messing with me.

    They're not supposed to spy or psy-op on us. I know my story sounds nuts, but it's a true one. Whether they are intel or hiding behind some no-name company, there has to be a way for the lower rung of bloggers to be protected.

    The attacks on me have been so sophisticated, I can't believe it is from some random nutjob who I upset by saying can it with the Joooos did it, or don't you dare suggest Brett Kimberlin is some groovy cat, or nope, no one can influence the weather with their minds, or uhm, true progressives would never support Mike Rivero, Ron Paul, and Willis Carto sources. I guess I should have just accepted it normal that Steven Hertzberg of Election Science Institute was a prolific blogger at a nutjob website calling Bev Harris a 9/11 CIA rat.

    I have come to believe that the whole election integrity movement on the internet has been rigged. Thus, real solutions don't get highlighted while rightwinger whistleblower hoaxes get the full stage.

  6. Anon,

    Describing what is an attack is difficult, and probably not worth the time.

    But I would say that challenging an idea is not an attack on a person. Not ad hominem that is.

    A fierce reply to an idea usually shows a fear of that idea. When someone does that to your idea, take some comfort in the notion that you presented it sharply and clearly ... and it got to them.

    If it is fear that is governing their response to your assertion, then when you respond to their post that challenged your idea which challenged their belief system, some honey can go a long way.

    But that is up to you.

    People who have strong beliefs in their ideas will be more like diplomats than like foot soldiers. They will want their ideas accepted like a good meal.

    And will want to share their chief prepared meal, not get into a food fight that wastes food.

    Stick around.

  7. ... oops ... I meant "chef prepared meal" not "chief prepared meal" ...

  8. Hey, you are now on my blog list that exists by memory. Speaking of meals, there was this big Tuna who never could understand the team concept. He spoke of groceries and cooking. He was a big name coach who almost brought the Patriots their first super bowl, if not for a few kick returns by the powerful Green Bay Packers.

    Afterwhich, he decided that he didn't have enough power. He said that the person cooking the meal needed to buy the groceries.

    Well, a few years leater, that team would become a dynasty under the coaching of Bill Belichick, a football lifer who wasn't afraid to share the glory. He understood the team concept, and even got Tom Brady buying into the menu. He had top notch management help from guys like Scott Pioli to help him go shopping for the ingredients.

    Thanks for the analogy.

    I have been trying to get off the internet for about a year, but each time I got turned on, or each time I noticed something else not adding up in the blogosphere, I went back to searching, taking screenshots, and putting it together on my no-name forum.

    It was Bozos who got me in contact with Brad. I'm not sure how long I posted for him, but that was my "big" place.

    "They" gave us the illusion that the netroots is kind of like sports farm systems. You need to pay your dues. If so, then it will only be a matter of time before the nobody label turns into prospect and then solid player.

    They use the emails to confuse you of how and when the meal was served. I knew there was something about Hertzberg that was a big story. I knew there was something going on all these years with "election integrity" on the net.

    By chance, I was lurking at a fruitloop place right when "Navari" was proclaimed as being Steven Hertzberg. For the next few months, I went all over the internet to make sure this was the same guy and wasn't some kind of rabbit hole trap.

    I'd say that around the time you were trying to get Brad to investigate Tony Krvaric, I was showing that who appears to be Hertzberg's brother had been one of the first to sponsor legislation for electronic voting equipment.

    We both got the same response. Crickets.

    Then I wrote to Bozos offering up my theory that Brad and Fintan could be double strawmen. He told me to get a life, that I was obsessed, that this was just a hobby of his.

    But at that same time, he was busy at Johnson's No Quarters and elsewhere promoting some zaniness about an old video being doctored to have Mickey Cantor disparaging the people of Indiana. Some kind of hobby. While that thing got buried and he moved on to talking about Obama giving Hillary the finger and other Obama bashing at No Quarters, MyDD, and CannonFire, I was still stuck in my own sequestered, hidden zone on the net, with all my evidence still buried.

    My last days at BradBlog got ugly. I am a sucker at first for psy-ops. Like you or someone else said, they have different bait for different people. But at some point, after I have been taken so utterly for granted, my bullshite radar starts blipping for them. I started asking Brad about Brett Kimberlin and Ben Burch.

    Eventually I was banned. But before so, Brad taunted me with good luck with your digging for facts or something.

    I did dig. I learned all I could about the driving force behind Velvet Revolution and BradBlog. It became confirmed in my mind that Brad Friedman is some form of gatekeeper.

    Then recently, with this new Connell threatened by Rove thing, I dug into it. I got that one scrubbed thread at DU with around 80-90 posts and 5,000 views before it was deleted.

    I have names and ideas. The script wants this all buried in the archives. But to be honest, the truth is to be found in the past. I found out how close Bev Harris and Hertzberg used to be. I started to see that someone named WillYourVoteBCounted is Joyce McCloy. I started to see that there are a lot of questions to be asked about Andy Stephenson.

    I have been all alone, which makes it difficult to do all the grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, etc.. My recent downfall at DU had to do with making just a few truthful comments about Andy. But a big chunk of the script at DU is thou shalt not speak badly of Saints Andy and Larisa. Brett Kimberlin? Who's he?

    Seriously, how does a sub shop owner make some posts at DU then rise to the top of the election integrity movement? Who is Larisa Alexandrovna? How does a convicted bomber rise so easily to the top of the food chain? How does Alexandrovna get away with saying he is an exonerated, ex-political prisoner?

    So this is how I see it. You are now being astroturfed as Mr. Mossad. I am to be seen as some kind of nutjob. I admit I am a bit nutty, but I profess here loud and clear that I exude nothing but sheer honesty.

    I have been in contact with one reporter. I recently let him in on this Connell story. He spoke with Arnebeck, tried to make contact with Larisa through email.

    Yes, there is a reason people like us are eventually swift-boated or whatnot. Before we start to wonder about these so-called progressives, we are good for business. We are real people actually posting on their outlets giving them credibility while our ideas get tainted by association to their strawmen like blunders.

    I believe that once we figure them out, they laugh at us with the no one is listening and no one cares. They expect us to go away or to have no credibility needed to make the case that something is stinking like psy-ops in the progressive zeitgeist.

    Hence, I am now thinking of pockets of awareness and guerilla blogging. I know that sounds like I need to share whatever it is I am smoking, but to repeat, I am honest to the core of my existence. I am willing to admit errors, etc.. But I also want a fair shake as someone who has devoted a number of years to seeking out truth via the internet.

    At some point, I expect to find real people who see what we see and realise that eventually the underdogs do win.