Is Defense Authorization Act Treasonous?


By J.B. Williams December 6,  2011
At first glance, I had some doubts about all  the hoopla over the pending Defense  Authorization Act and claims that it was essentially a declaration of war on  American citizens, under the guise of national security and annual defense  appropriations.
Then I read the bill and connected the dots that every  American must connect immediately.
The treasonous text in that bill  reads as follows; (pay close attention to the areas in bold)
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President  to use all necessary and appropriate force [1] pursuant to the Authorization  for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority  for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined  in subsection (b) pending disposition under the law of war.[2]
(b)  Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as  follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the  terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those  responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported  al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities  against the United States or its coalition partners,[3] including any person who  has committed a belligerent act[4] or has directly supported such hostilities in  aid of such enemy forces.[5]

Before directly addressing this  text and in an effort to fully grasp how this text is an act of treason against  the American people, there are a few fundamental facts one must  understand.
• Our Armed Services exist for one reason alone, at the  service of the people, to protect and defend the Unites States, The U.S.  Constitution and the American people against all enemies, both foreign and  domestic. This is the primary purpose and function of our federal  government.

• The Laws of War  as written by William Winthrop, also known as Military  Law or the Uniform  Code of Military Justice, operate entirely separate and independent from the  Civil Justice System, including the suspension of fundamental Constitutional  Rights for both members of the Military and those designated enemy  combatants.

• Following Bill  Clinton’s lead in 1996 and immediately upon seizing office, the Obama  Administration issued a Homeland Security  Report directly identifying members of the US Military, Veterans and  American citizens with dissenting views towards the current direction of our  country as “potential  domestic terrorists” and “right-wing extremists.”

• The Obama  Administration has been cross-training state and local law enforcement agencies  on dealing with “urban warfare” aimed at so-called “right-wing extremists” which  is now defined as anyone opposed to Global  Governance and national socialism. • American courts no longer enforce  the law or the Constitution. Instead, they make up the law as they go via  unbridled interpretation powers exceeding their constitutional authority, all in  the name of “social justice,” not to be confused with actual justice.
As  a result, the language in Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Defense  Authorization Act amount to treason against the American people, as an  open-ended power of the Executive Branch to indefinitely detain, incarcerate and  interrogate American citizens on the basis of suspicion or accusations without  even bring any criminal charges, much less providing due process of the  law.
What if the person sitting in the Oval Office is a foreign born  domestic enemy of the United States? — What if the Administration is willing to  use the full power of the federal government and the U.S. Military to force its  political will upon the people, deeming every dissenter as a “potential domestic  terrorist?” — What if the American courts make up laws as they go without any  regard for written laws or the U.S. Constitution?
Guess what? That’s  exactly what we have today!
The current Defense Authorization Act gives  the President of the United States the unbridled power to use the U.S. Military  against American citizens, their Constitutional Rights suspended under the Laws  of War. That’s what this text says and that’s how today’s courts will  interpret that language.
Breaking Down the Text
1 – “authority of  the President to use all necessary and appropriate force” – Appropriate force is  not the same thing as necessary force. Military force against American citizens  is entirely inappropriate. But if the federal government keeps destroying the  constitutional republic, it may well become necessary. NO single politician can  be trusted with this much power.
2 – “Use of Military Force (Public Law  107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to  detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under  the law of war.” – Use of Military force against American citizens is entirely  inappropriate and even unconstitutional, whether deemed necessary or not.  Placing American citizens under the Laws of War is placing them under Martial  Law, including the suspension of all Constitutional Rights. It is an act of war  against the American people and that is an act of treason.
3 – “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or  its coalition partners,” – What constitutes “associated forces” – “engaged in  hostilities against the United States?” Are Wall Street protesters engaged in  hostilities against the United States? Are college students protesting higher  tuitions engaged in hostilities against the United States when they smash store  windows or set cars on fire? Is someone engaged in hostilities against France or England a potential domestic terrorist? Are Tea Party rallies an act of  aggression against the federal government of the United States? Is the mere  accusation enough?
4 – “any person who has committed a belligerent act” – All of the acts described in item above can be deemed “belligerent acts.” Is  there any such thing as wrongful prosecution under the Laws of War? You had  better read the Laws of War.
5 – “has directly supported such hostilities  in aid of such enemy forces” – Is Ron Paul guilty of hostile acts in support of  enemy forces for blaming the United States for all the attacks on the United  States? Paul is one of only six House Republicans to vote against the bill. Is  Code Pink guilty of aiding and abetting enemy forces? Are they subject to U.S.  Military attacks on US soil for their hostile actions in support of our nation’s  enemies? Are members of congress currently bankrupting the nation acting hostile  and belligerent towards the United States?
The U.S. House passed this  bill on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 322-96, including Tea Party darlings  Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio and Allen West.
The Senate bill  passed on December 1, 2011 by a vote of 93-7. Merry Christmas! Only three Senate  Republicans voted against the bill, Coburn (OK), Lee (UT) and Paul (KY). Did all  other Republicans know what they were voting for?
If you are still trying  to figure out just how far your federal government is willing to go to complete  implementation of UN Agenda 21  and the U.S. Global  Governance Plan, look no further than the passage of the Defense  Authorization Act for 2012, paying very close attention to the text  discussed in this column.
Could this new law place American soldiers in  direct violation of their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and  the American people against all enemies?
The legislation itself does not… but an order from the President of the United States to go to weapons against  American citizens certainly would. How would American soldiers react to such an  outrageous order? Only time will tell…
Our federal government is 100%  committed to implementing a plan for  Global Government which will bring about the end of American sovereignty,  security and superiority in the world. Citizens willing to stand opposed may  indeed fall within the provisional power just granted to the President in this  legislation and could well find themselves persecuted under the Laws of War  rather than the Civil Justice System.
More than ever in U.S. history, it  is vital that the American people to know their enemies and their options.  Unless they can find a way to keep Obama from signing this bill into law, their  options will be limited to the broad interpretations of today’s broken legal  system.
God help us!
© 2011 JB Williams – All Rights  Reserved

JB Williams is a  business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on  American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published  nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of  Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the  power to the right people in America.

About luchadora41

Born-again Christian Zionist; Conservative/Tea Partier; Chippewa; pro-Constitution; anti-Sharia; proud of all who dare to fight for freedom; support our troops; dedicated to restoring America; happy to know Jesus!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Is Defense Authorization Act Treasonous?

  1. I am not 100 percent certain that all of our military will go along with this law. I recall a Field Grade Officer serving in the US Army who did a paper on whether or not it was lawful for a military officer to obey an unlawful order issued by the Commander in Chief. The officer’s paper was replete with footnotes to support his position that an Officers oath is to defend the Constitution, not carry out unlawful orders issued by the President. Apparently, this officer looked forward to the time when the Executive Branch committed treason against the people by usurping our Constitution in favor of dictatorial powers. During my service, many of us felt as this officer did. We would rather resign our Commissions than carry out orders that violate the Constitution.

    Let us pray, that should this law be implemented, that our Military Officers take action to arrest the traitors who authored and promoted this law.

  2. luchadora41 says:

    Agreed. I don’t see many Military officers obeying this command were they to be asked. There are Oathkeepers and Veteran Defenders of America, to name a couple, and they will not stand for this. You’re right…let us pray that the right thing happens. Thank you, my friend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s