The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

"One would have thought that the systematic dismantling of the Constitution of the United States would have been enough to satisfy even the most Jacobin neoconservative, but there is more on the horizon, and it is coming from people who call themselves Democrats."

Being pushed by those who call themselves Zionists.

NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'Etat by National Emergency

by William H. White - Nov 5, 2007

Can you think of anyone better than George W. Bush with whom to entrust the dictatorial powers hinted at in NSPD-51? Or perhaps you are unwilling to trust anyone with such powers, even Bush. That is not an option in NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 51 (NSPD-51), signed by Bush and released without comment by the White House on May 9, 2007. To quote from NSPD-51: “This policy establishes ‘National Essential Functions,’ prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.” What one would expect, but for some of its few details.

Under NSPD-51, only limited ‘National Essential Functions’ of government will continue, which may or may not include Congress and the courts. NSPD-51 assures us: “Enduring Constitutional Government means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches...” This “matter of comity,” which usually refers to the informal and voluntary recognition of jurisdiction among courts, is troublesomely ambiguous in this context. Is Bush claiming that he, rather than the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, determines which functions the three branches of the federal government shall continue to perform? Does the president decide for himself, as he "coordinates," which laws and court orders to faithfully execute?

NSPD-51 claims that it "provides guidance” to state and local governments, when in fact it does the opposite because it revoked the then existing Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including “all Annexes thereto.” And replaced them with NSPD-51, along with: “Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto.” But then the rabbit disappears as NSPD-51 soldiers on: “This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.” In other words, all the details are secret and even the non secret “Annex A” remains undisclosed by the White House.

Having revoked on May 9, 2007 the nation’s then existing emergency plan for continued national governance without explanation, Bush’s NSPD-51 calls for: “The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.” One assumes, during this lapse in emergency plans, no emergency was expected, or at least presented less risk than leaving that old Clinton plan in place. Since the national media, except one story each in the Washington Post and Boston Globe, have ignored NSPD-51, Bush has not bothered to explain any of this.

Especially if such explanations might raise questions about the decision to revoke the existing plan before finishing work on the new plan, which some might conclude serves only to rush the review of one of the most complex and sensitive plans in government in an attempt to slip something by the rest of us. Whatever the motive, abruptly revoking the existing plan, while mandating a new plan within 90 days, exhibits the same reckless, delusional optimism that characterizes much of Bush's planning record. Clearly Bush is confident he can do far better than Clinton, whose administration labored for years on that old plan. Much of the old plan may even be in the new plan, who knows?

Among those who do not know are members of the House Committee on Homeland Security. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied the committee access to NSPD-51, about which Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) complained in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. What we do know is those 90 days passed without a new plan approval being announced. Perhaps no plan gives the president exactly the maximum power and minimum accountability desired; or, perhaps the plan's approval is secret as well. Apparently, the "matter of comity"among the three branches of government, referred to in NSPD-51, does not include allowing NSPD-51 to be read by members of Congress, which the Congress, in a continuing pattern of acquiesce, has not challenged.

This almost entirely secret directive can be invoked when the president decides “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions” occurred. Bush alone will decide when he must assume this burden, though surely only upon prayerful contemplation during the time saved not having to consult Congress. In addition, because of a change to the Insurrection Act of 1807, enacted as part of the 439-page 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law in October 2006, Bush need no longer obtain a governor’s consent to take control of a state’s national guard units. This same bill overturns the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limited the use of US military forces within the United States for law enforcement. In addition, Bush issued an executive order on July 17, 2007 authorizing the government to seize the assets of anyone "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" under provisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Could this include critics of the Iraq war, whom Bush has repeatedly accused of undermining the war effort?

When might Bush invoke NSPD-51? My own guess would be Spring ‘08, after Bush is "forced" to attack Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons, and Iran then fails to cooperate, attacking US ships in the Gulf and Mediterranean instead of accepting our offers of assistance. Even if Iran denied Bush his basic objective by refusing to be goaded into reacting beyond its own borders, the resulting global economic chaos and spontaneous popular reactions beyond Iran could compel Bush to invoke NSPD-51, quite apart from whatever our new enemy might undertake. On the other hand, under NSPD-51 any provocation of Bush could lead to him creating a pretext for declaring a national emergency. For example,Ralph Nader quotes Massachusetts Rep. John W. Olver (D), who has a PhD from MIT, when presented with the votes of 13 Town Meetings [real Town Meetings, not the media events staged for candidate performances] in Olver's congressional district calling for impeachment of Cheney and Bush, Olver responded that he opposed any impeachment move against Bush because "the current autocratic executive [Bush] would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute marshal law, and call off the 2008 elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment."

Should Bush declare a national emergency and begin exercising the many powers available to him in law, as well as the ever expanding powers he claims by fiat, our nation would cross into a world increasingly difficult to predict, largely beyond our national experience, except perhaps for our revolution and civil war, subject to ad hoc, unchecked decision making, with genuine rule of law no longer an available guide. It would likely become increasingly difficult, in the absence of reliable information, to understand and deal with the originating crisis, however real or contrived. And to distinguish it from the difficulties arising from the declaration of a national emergency itself. However, this sort of thing has sadly occurred in many other countries, with much the same result likely here: a self-sustaining crisis, in which the chief rationales for continuing the national emergency are the effects of the national emergency themselves, compounded by errors in governance and crimes by those who seized power, sustained by their fear for what would happen to them should they give it up. The longer term prospect would likely include national decline and insurrection, with an even more unpredictable array of international consequences starting with a widening war.

In the short term, one can imagine Congress, demonstrating its usual wisdom and courage, expressing concern about the clearly large, though secret, number of American citizens "detained," surprise at the scope of firearm and asset seizures, discomfort with the pace of executions under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and outrage at being locked out of its capital offices due to a classified biological threat of undetermined duration, thus preventing Congress from voting to set benchmarks for Iran and to demand our readmission to NATO. But Congress would likely find some comfort in the "delay" of the 2008 elections, given Bush's decision to allow all incumbents, including those temporarily detained, to remain in office, which many in Congress would praise for its "unifying bipartisan comity," and await the president's determination when it is safe for Congress and the Supreme Court to actually meet again. Just as many in corporate American would appreciate the need to "defer" collecting capital gains and corporate taxes in the interests of helping the economy in a time of national crisis. Besides, how could anyone resist the perfectly Orwellian logic of declaring a dictatorship to insure "Constitutional Continuity" for the “homeland,” while setting aside the actual Constitution of the United States?

Whatever unknowable future a declaration of national emergency might bring, clearly many are going to be profoundly unhappy with such a turn of events. And that may be why Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is already building detention centers around the nation to “support the rapid development of new programs” that could accommodate those incompatible with Constitutional Continuity, the dead-enders who actually protest or resist, plus the usual suspects who might think to object.

But how would all those potential incompatibles, certainly tens of thousands and likely far more, find their way to an appropriate detention center? After all, the Bush administration has managed to prosecute only a handful of businesses for hiring illegal aliens who number in the millions. Its clearly a matter of priorities. So, despite such distractions as hurricane Katrina, the Justice Department has been conducting mass arrest exercises code named Operation Falcon, whereby thousands of law enforcement officers from federal, state, county and local agencies arrested some 10,000 individuals within seven days, working from lists provided by the U.S. Marshall’s Service, all coordinated to commence across the country simultaneously. Since practice makes perfect, three mass arrest exercises have been conduced: Two national (Falcon I April 4-10, 2005 arresting 10,340; Falcon II April 17-23, 2006 arresting 9,037); and one “eastern half of the country” (Falcon III October 22-28, 2006 arresting 10,733).

What can not be found among these data is mention of any legitimate law enforcement purpose served by these mass arrests. While some arrested were serious criminals, most were of the unanswered warrantee and support payment delinquent sort, soon released. The important element here appears to be getting operational experience and, perhaps most critically, habituating state and local police agencies to conducting mass arrests from lists provided by the federal government. In the eastern regional Falcon III alone, 103 state agencies, 430 county sheriff's offices/departments and 482 police departments did just that according to the U.S. Marshals Service web site. At the current pace, perhaps Falcon IV, for the western half of the U.S., will be the last drill and then the real thing: Operation Falcon V.

So its likely, when Bush addresses his fellow citizens after declaring the national emergency, many of his critics will be listening most attentively to detention camp loud speakers. As for how detainees will be treated, one can assume every effort will be made to maintain our current standards for indefinite detention without trial and torture assisted interrogation, where little slip-ups under the press of numbers and emergency conditions are likely to be of little consequence. What is certain, should coup d'etat by national emergency take place, is it will be denied even as it unfolds, and this is likely to be followed by assurances it will be temporary, lasting "not one day more than it needs to," followed by accusations the resistors are responsible for prolonging the state of emergency, and finally appeals to turn in others if you want your own relatives released soon from detention or your property/assets returned; all lies to sustain a long planned, permanent state of national emergency.

What is likely to be important in most corporate media is demonstrating our determination to carry on by shopping as well as selecting the proper anthem for our new world order. I'm hoping for something stirring along the lines of "Deutschland Uber Alles," except with a touch of Texas twang as in "Dallas Uber Alles," in an arrangement using fewer trombones plus a weeping steel guitar. However, since this is such an important decision, our new anthem, with its companion national prayer and corporate logo, should be selected by ‘We the people of the United States’ from among three finalists chosen by our First Lady, in our first-ever national referendum, proving yet again our commitment to democracy and putting all those new voting machines to use in November '08 after all.

Or you might send this and/or additional such materials to others, including your congressional delegation as well as the press, to warn about the danger Bush’s NSPD-51 presents, and demand steps be taken to prevent it. Since the courts are hopelessly slow given the immediate danger, Congress must do its duty. And we must do our duty and demand Congress end its reluctance to stand up to Bush's repeated, escalating, bullying contempt: if its unnecessary, it should be easy; if its not easy, it is all the more necessary.

NOTE TO THE READER:

It is entirely true that each real event cited here has alternative, plausible explanation, and those participating in these events may be entirely unaware of the darker ends to which their work may be put. The essay's many conjectures are exactly that. However, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance not good faith or trust. Nor is the US Constitution based on trust, but rather on checks and balances, in a arrangement designed to avoid the gravest of follies and to contain inevitable mischief, embracing sound assumptions about the weaknesses of human nature rather than its virtuous pretenses. Knowing the Bush administration's record of reckless lawlessness and radical mind set, the possibility of a coup d'etat by national emergency can not be ignored, especially within the context of recent institutional actions that can be reasonably interpreted as being consistent with and preparatory to such an undertaking. These include Bush's relentless assault on and blatant affront to the constitutional limits on executive power, exemplified by the brazenly sly release without comment of NSPD-51, and encouraged by congressional failure to stand up to his flagrant excesses. I believe the risk to our republic is real. And needs to be confronted immediately, with the objective of using existing congressional power and establishing additional safeguards, formal and informal, to prevent it. Better to prevent what some may claim was never going to happen, than to suffer betrayed good faith, with the appalling costs of experiencing and undoing this grave folly Bush appears to be edging toward, as relentlessly as he undertook the invasion of Iraq from the first days of his administration.

Further reading:

Congressional Research Service Report - National Emergency Powers

Operation Falcon and the Looming Police State by Mike Whitney

The Bush Push to Militarize America by Jerome Corsi

Congress's Unused War Powers

by George F. Will, Washington Post - November 4, 2007

Americans are wondering, with the lassitude of uninvolved spectators, whether the president will initiate a war with Iran. Some Democratic presidential candidates worry, or purport to, that he might claim an authorization for war in a Senate resolution labeling an Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit a terrorist organization. Some Democratic representatives oppose the president's request for $88 million to equip B-2 stealth bombers to carry huge "bunker-buster" bombs, hoping to thereby impede a presidential decision to attack Iran's hardened nuclear facilities.

While legislators try to leash a president by tinkering with a weapon, they are ignoring a sufficient leash -- the Constitution. They are derelict in their sworn duty to uphold it. Regarding the most momentous thing government does, make war, the constitutional system of checks and balances is broken.

Congress can, however, put the Constitution's bridle back on the presidency. Congress can end unfettered executive war-making by deciding to. That might not require, but would be facilitated by, enacting the Constitutional War Powers Resolution. Introduced last week by Rep. Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican, it technically amends but essentially would supplant the existing War Powers Resolution, which has been a nullity ever since it was passed in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto.

Jones's measure is designed to ensure that deciding to go to war is, as the Founders insisted it be, a "collective judgment." It would prohibit presidents from initiating military actions except to repel or retaliate for sudden attacks on America or American troops abroad, or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens abroad. It would provide for expedited judicial review to enforce compliance with the resolution and would permit the use of federal funds only for military actions taken in compliance with the resolution.

It reflects conclusions reached by the War Powers Initiative of the Constitution Project. That nonpartisan organization's 2005 study notes that Congress's appropriation power augments the requirement of advance authorization by Congress before the nation goes to war. It enables Congress to stop the use of force by cutting off its funding. That check is augmented by the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits any expenditure or obligation of funds not appropriated by Congress, and by legislation that criminalizes violations of the act.

All this refutes Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that the president might have "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if funding were cut off. Besides, American history is replete with examples of Congress restraining executive war-making. (See "Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789," a book by Charles A. Stevenson.) Congress has forbidden:

Sending draftees outside this hemisphere (1940-41); introduction of combat troops into Laos or Thailand (1969); reintroduction of troops into Cambodia (1970); combat operations in Southeast Asia (1973); military operations in Angola (1976); use of force in Lebanon other than for self-defense (1983); military activities in Nicaragua (1980s). In 1993 and 1994, Congress mandated the withdrawal of troops from Somalia and forbade military actions in Rwanda.

When Congress authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress refused to adopt administration language authorizing force "to deter and preempt any future" terrorism or aggression. The wonder is that the administration bothered to seek this language.

The administration's "presidentialists" -- including the president -- believe presidents are constitutionally emancipated from all restraints regarding core executive functions, particularly those concerning defense and waging war. Clearly they think the rejected language would have added nothing to the president's inherent powers.

Congress's powers were most dramatically abandoned and ignored regarding Korea. Although President Harry S. Truman came from a Congress controlled by his party and friends, he never sought congressional authorization to send troops into massive and sustained conflict. Instead, he asserted broad authority to "execute" treaties such as the U.N. Charter.

For today's Democrats, resistance to unilateral presidential war-making reflects not principled constitutionalism but petulance about the current president. Democrats were supine when President Bill Clinton launched a sustained air war against Serbia without congressional authorization. Instead, he cited NATO's authorization -- as though that were an adequate substitute for the collective judgment that the Constitution mandates. Republicans, supposed defenders of limited government, actually are enablers of an unlimited presidency. Their belief in strict construction of the Constitution evaporates, and they become, in behavior if not in thought, adherents of the woolly idea of a "living Constitution." They endorse, by their passivity, the idea that new threats justify ignoring the Framers' text and logic about shared responsibility for war-making.

Unless and until Congress stops prattling about presidential "usurpation" of power and asserts its own, it will remain derelict regarding its duty of mutual participation in war-making. And it will merit its current marginalization.

Restoring Rights

by John F. McManus - Nov 2007

If leading spokespersons of both the right and the left in America enthusiastically back passage of any piece of legislation, there should be headlines in the various elements of the mass media. Anything attracting that kind of bipartisan support must certainly be dramatically important — so weighty that all conscious Americans ought to examine it. Claiming to be among the “conscious,” we hereby provide a serious look at H.R. 3835, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. It was introduced in the House of Representatives by Texas Republican Ron Paul on October 15, 2007.

If enacted, H.R. 3835 would:

• repeal the 2006 Military Commissions Act that denies habeas corpus (the right to face criminal accusations in a court of law);
• ban confessions gained through torture or coercion;
• insist on adherence to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to gain intelligence;
• challenge the president’s practice of disregarding portions of laws with presidential “signing statements”;
• ban torture and arbitrary kidnapping or imprisonment;
• protect journalists who receive information from the executive branch from prosecution for airing it “unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm” to our national security; and
• put a stop to any use of secret evidence against any individual or organization.
  In short, the act would cancel numerous executive branch attacks on the types of civil liberties that have uniquely marked our nation.

H.R. 3835 has earned support across our nation’s political spectrum because the abuses addressed or alluded to in it have indeed been committed. If this type of extra-constitutional activity isn’t stopped, and if the reigning powers in the executive branch aren’t required to submit to traditional restraints, the United States could be transformed into a police state. Both aliens and U.S. citizens could find themselves targeted with no appeal to the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The Military Commissions Act (MCA), one of H.R. 3835’s chief targets, became law late in 2006 after House approval by 250-170 followed a 65-34 vote in the Senate. President Bush eagerly signed it after having insisted it was necessary “as part of making sure that we do have the capacity to protect you,” meaning the American people. He also said it was needed “to insure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the law to get information that can save American lives.”

In what is surely its most fundamental — though far from its only — undermining of rights, MCA grants power to the president to suspend habeas corpus. Traceable to its inclusion in the Magna Carta of 1215 and frequently termed “The Great Writ,” habeas corpus literally means “you have the body.” It is a legal protection that allows any person to seek relief from unlawful detention of either himself or another. It is as basic a right as can be imagined. Using it prevents arbitrary and lawless action such as incarceration without any reason being given and denial of legal assistance if apprehended. And it applies not only to the citizens of this nation but to all persons dealt with by U.S. authorities.

The Founding Fathers understood the importance of habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Our nation is not in rebellion and the kind of invasion envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution has not occurred. Hence, there is no justification for suspending the privilege.

In its attack on habeas corpus, MCA states that “no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider any claim or case of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus … brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant.” As clearly pointed out in the October 30, 2006 issue of this magazine, MCA’s attack on habeas corpus is not aimed solely at aliens. That this is so can be seen in the MCA’s definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” as a “person who has engaged in hostilities” against our country or a “person who … has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant” by a tribunal established “under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.” If federal authorities designate someone as an “unlawful enemy combatant,” such as a journalist or speaker who opposes the administration’s war or anti-terrorism policies, habeas corpus could be suspended.

As NEW AMERICAN analyst Joe Wolverton has pointed out, the definition found in MCA “throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word ‘person’ rather than ‘alien.’” American citizen Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago in May 2002 as he returned from Pakistan. He was labeled an enemy combatant and accused of planning to set off a dirty atomic weapon in a major U.S. city. His lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition seeking to discover the evidence backing up the charge. A court denied the petition and Padilla remained in a military prison for more than three years until November 2005.

Even though Padilla was a U.S. citizen, his rights to know the charges against him, to have legal assistance, and to receive a speedy trial were not honored. During his three years and eight months of incarceration in a military prison, Padilla claims to have been tortured and drugged. Video footage likely demonstrating the treatment he allegedly received “mysteriously disappeared” according to Bush administration attorneys. Eventually brought to trial, Padilla was not convicted on the original charges made against him but on such evidence as a highly questionable request he made to go to Afghanistan and a 10-year-old videotape of Osama bin Laden. On the other hand, the government dropped the very serious charge that Padilla was planning to set off a dirty nuclear device; that charge, which shocked the nation when the government snatched Padilla amidst great media fanfare, was dropped down a memory hole.

Padilla is not the only American citizen who has been treated in such a fashion. Louisianan Yaser Esam Hamdi was working in Afghanistan when he was captured by the Northern Alliance, turned over to U.S. authorities, accused of being a member of the Taliban, sent to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and later transferred to a military prison in South Carolina before being freed. And what happened to Padilla and Hamdi has also been the fate of hundreds of prisoners languishing for years in that same special U.S. military compound at Guantanamo. Their incarceration occurred prior to passage of MCA. Joe Wolverton explains that heavy support for the act “was pushed by the Bush administration in a bid to get congressional approval of all the illegal action it had already been taking.”

MCA’s attack on habeas corpus is not its only invitation to home-grown tyranny. It allows “pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions” and gives legitimacy to “statements … obtained by coercion.” Defining these frightening terms is left to the discretion of the president or someone he designates. That it was approved by Congress, many of whose members likely never read it beforehand, indicates dereliction of duty and disdain for the Constitution by a majority of its members.

Gonzalez and His Successor

The Bush administration’s attitude regarding the revolutionary powers contained in MCA was clearly expressed on January 19, 2007 by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Under questioning regarding the measure’s powers, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.” A stunned Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) interrupted and stated, “Now, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right to habeas corpus unless there is an invasion or rebellion?”

Alberto Gonzalez sought to explain his outrageous assertion: “I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say ‘Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas corpus.’ It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by...” The Pennsylvania senator interrupted again and told the soon-to-resign attorney general that he was “violating common sense.” True enough, but he was also violating the most fundamental of all rights protected by the still-existing though regularly discounted Constitution of the United States — habeas corpus.*

No one should believe that because Alberto Gonzalez recently resigned his post that his attitude has been dethroned. It still prevails as the policy of the Bush administration. Mr. Bush’s nominee to replace Gonzalez, Michael Mukasey, essentially seconded what Gonzalez had stated when questioned about the administration’s disputed antiterrorism policies during Senate confirmation hearings. He claimed that the president had authority as commander in chief to supersede laws written by Congress. He is, therefore, another believer in an imperial presidency. His commentary provides another sound reason for enacting H.R. 3835.

Support From Left and Right

For much of the year 2007, the concerns addressed by H.R. 3835 attracted the attention of both conservatives and liberals concerned about the unconstitutional accumulation of powers by the executive branch. Last March, a group of nationally recognized conservatives announced formation of the American Freedom Agenda (AFA), a campaign seeking restoration of the Constitution’s protections against the Bush administration’s attacks on civil liberties. Led by former Reagan administration Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, the group includes former Congressman Bob Barr, legal scholar John Whitehead, and several other conservative activists.

AFA’s mission statement claims that “the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative and judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.” The group’s 10-point agenda has largely been reproduced in Congressman Paul’s H.R. 3835. (See text of the measure in "A Bill That Protects Rights.")

In addition, AFA compiled its American Freedom Pledge, a pledge for presidential candidates to sign. Its 10 points follow:

1. No Military Commissions (military panels to try war crimes) Except on the Battlefield
2. No Evidence Extracted by Torture or Coercion
3. No Detaining Citizens as Unlawful Enemy Combatants
4. Restoring Habeas Corpus for Suspected Alien Enemy Combatants
5. Prohibiting Warrantless Spying by the National Security Agency in Violation of Law
6. Renouncing Presidential Signing Statements
7. Ending Secret Government by Invoking State Secrets Privilege
8. Stopping Extraordinary Renditions
9. Stopping Threats to Prosecuting Journalists Under the Espionage Act
10. Ending the Listing of Individuals or Organizations as Terrorists Based on Secret Evidence

Rep. Paul was the first presidential candidate to sign the AFA Pledge, and he drew from its points to create his H.R. 3835.

In July, prominent liberals launched the parallel American Freedom Campaign (AFC), founded by liberal activist Naomi Wolf and backed by prominent leftists from Human Rights Watch and MoveOn.org. A Yale graduate and a Rhodes Scholar, Wolf labored for Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection and Al Gore’s run for the presidency in 2000. She maintains that she “is not a voter on [Congressman Ron Paul’s] side of the ballot, but I will move heaven and earth to support the passage” of his bill.

The liberal AFC has produced its own “American Freedom Pledge” which parallels the AFA pledge. It reads in part:

We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal recourse, allow our phones and emails to be tapped without a court order, and above all do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President.... Yet today, under the pretense of the “war of terror” the White House is dismantling the Constitution, concentrating power in the President, and undermining the rule of law. This is un-American. [Emphasis in the original.]

If you have the opportunity to speak to a candidate for the nation’s highest office, be sure to ask him or her to sign one of these pledges. Additionally, all liberty-cherishing Americans should approach incumbents and candidates for House and Senate seats about this incredibly important matter. House members should be asked to cosponsor H.R. 3835. Senators should be requested to introduce and support a companion piece in their chamber.

A massive calling of attention to H.R. 3835, and to either of the pledges noted above, will have a dampening effect on any continuance of the ongoing trashing of civil liberties. The very healthy joining of forces by the left and the right in America on this issue could pave the way for further togetherness in restoring the entire U.S. Constitution.

Readers are encouraged to contact their representative in favor of the American Freedom Agenda Act. To send a letter online, go to http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10449681 [1].

* In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Nelson that “the writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” The principle in this case has been repeated in numerous instances both before and after the 1969 statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s Left of the Bill of Rights?

Television commentator Keith Olbermann hosts Countdown on MSNBC. Well known for his liberal views, he is one of many on the left who consider the Military Commissions Act as an enormous infringement of fundamental rights.

On October 10, 2006, not long after Congress passed the administration-backed Military Commissions Act, Olbermann began his program as follows: “The president has now succeeded where no one has before. He’s managed to kill the writ of habeas corpus.”

He continued the broadcast with several quotes resurrected from lawmakers such as the following from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), another liberal: “The bill before us would not only suspend the great writ — the writ of habeas corpus — it just eliminates it permanently. Conditions for suspending habeas corpus have not been met.”

Olbermann then displayed an enlarged copy of the Bill of Rights and proceeded to show how the destruction of habeas corpus affected nine of its 10 amendments to our nation’s Constitution. These amendments, of course, were added to prohibit government from attacking and destroying fundamental rights. Pointing to his blown-up copy of the first 10 amendments, he proceeded to X-out one after another of the articles as follows:

OK, number one is gone. If you’re detained without trial, you lose your freedom of religion and speech, press, assembly, all the rest.... And, you know, you can’t petition the government for anything.

Number two, while you’re in prison, your right to keep and bear arms might be infringed upon even if you’re in the NRA....

Number three [quartering of troops] is all right.

Number four, you’re definitely not secure against searches and seizures … so forget the fourth.

Number five, grand juries and due process? Obviously out....

Number six, well trials are gone too, let alone the right to counsel. Speedy trial? You want it when?

Number seven, I thought we just covered trials and juries earlier, so forget the seventh.

Number eight, well bail’s kind of a moot point isn’t it?

Number nine, other rights retained by the people. Well, you know, if you can name them during your water boarding, we’ll consider them.

Number ten, powers not delegated to the United States federal government. Well, they seem to have ended up there anyway.

So as you can see … at least one tenth of the Bill of Rights — I guess it’s the Bill of Right now — remains virtually intact. Number three is still safe.

We can rest easy knowing that we will never, ever have to quarter soldiers in our homes as long as the Third Amendment still stands strong. The president can just take care of that with a signing statement.

New Bill to Repeal Military Commissions Act in House

by JBS, - October 23, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced a bill that would restore the Constitution's system of checks and balances, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Titled the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (H.R. 3835), the bill would restore habeas corpus by repealing the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The following is an excerpt from the American Freedom Agenda Act:

(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.

(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.

(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.

(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.

The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary as well as the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence.

Senate & Neocons To Carve Up Bill of Rights

by Kurt Nimmo - Oct 18, 2007

It’s now official, the entire Senate is criminally complicit in undermining the Fourth Amendment.

“Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government’s domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources,” reports the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post.

In standard doublespeak fashion, the Post is attempting to put the best face on the fact the Senate has dealt the telecoms a get out of jail free card. It is, as well, typical that the Post characterizes the legislation as a “control” mechanism when in fact it is a blank check. Of course, this hardly matters, as the NSA has worked with the telecoms for decades to subvert the constitutional rights of Americans, who are basically none the wiser when it comes down to the fact the government is a police state, long engaged in snooping of the sort Germany’s Stasi employed.

“Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers.” In other words, Democrats, who are a Senate majority, disrespect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the same disgusting degree as the neocon Republicans, and are thus as criminal. Naturally, this is nothing new, as you can turn your garden variety Democrat upside down and he or she will look identical to a Republican, never mind the corporate media turning somersaults in an effort to get us to buy into supposed differences, the very framework of the phony left-right paradigm on Capitol Hill. Millions of Americans—from your Rush Limbaugh Republican to your MoveOn Democrat—buy into this nonsense, apparently unable to break free of the voodoo trance of the corporate media buttressed fiction of ideological differences.

Said neocon traitor and so-called House Minority leader John A. Boehner: “There is absolutely no reason our intelligence officials should have to consult government lawyers before listening into terrorist communications with the likes of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and other foreign terror groups.” Translation: there is no reason the neocons should have to follow the Constitution and rule of law when snooping the phone calls and internet communication of millions of Americans. As we know, Osama is dead and “al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorist groups” are covertly—or not so covertly—organized, financed, and unleashed by the CIA, MI6, Mossad, indeed the entire “intelligence” monolith, legendary for spinning off useful terrorist groups. Moreover, as a well-read tenth grader might tell you, the NSA engages in the vacuum cleaner approach to “intelligence gathering,” not pinpoint monitoring of “al-Qaeda” phone calls made from a pay phone in Ship Bottom, New Jersey.

More than anything, this “agreement” (criminal conspiracy) was reached in order to protect multinational telecoms, open to “pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants.” Of course, the Senate and House were long ago turned into whorehouse parlors for transnational corporations, so this really is not surprising. Question is, how long will the government continue the charade there is actually legal recourse for Americans when the Constitution is so egregiously violated? How long before we are pitched into full-fledged decider-commander guy fascism?

“Senate Democrats successfully pressed for a requirement that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court review the government’s procedures for deciding who is to be the subject of warrantless surveillance,” the CIA’s favorite fish wrapper continues. “They also insisted that the legislation be renewed in six years, Democratic congressional officials said. The Bush administration had sought less stringent oversight by the court and wanted the law to be permanent.”

In other words, treasonous Democrats want to continue the illusion that the “constitutional compromise” FISA Court is legal, when in fact is it is a long-standing violation of the Fourth Amendment, as all surveillance must follow probable cause with a court order. But then bogus “special needs” categories, mutating from the unconstitutional province of drunk driving checkpoints and random drug tests to the federal government as a whole, are the rule of the day. As previously noted, “highly intrusive and wholly discretionary warrantless wiretapping” is nothing new, as the NSA has worked with the telecoms since at least the 1940s.

Even so-called “civil libertarians” are not dedicated to the original principles held in the Bill of Rights, preferring to play footsy with “conservatives,” i.e., fascist corporatists (an admitted redundancy), and sell the Constitution out lock, stock, and barrel. “Most Democratic lawmakers and party members—backed by civil libertarians and even some conservatives—wanted the new legislation to ensure for example that future domestic surveillance in foreign-intelligence-related investigations would be overseen by the foreign surveillance court. The court was created in response to CIA and FBI domestic spying abuses unmasked in the mid-1970s.” Of course, these exposed “spying abuses” were an aberration—a sign of the times, part of the outrage over Watergate and government criminality—and the CIA and FBI are feeling much better now, knowing that there are few if any people in government willing to unmask current abuses, that is to say long term and ongoing and endemic abuses.

“But conservative Democrats worried about Republicans’ charges that the Democratic bill extended too many rights to suspected terrorists,” that is to say the American people, a few who actually believe they have an intact Constitution, as there are no “suspected terrorists” on phone lines, or rather no genuine terrorists, simply government plants and clueless patsies, programmed to exude an air of terrorist scariness, no matter how absurd as it emanates from remote caves (complete with kidney dialysis machines and internet servers) and MI6 sponsored mosques or ISI facilitated religious schools.

Finally, in order to better understand the fascistic character of our rulers, consider Rep. Louie Gohmert, who blathered: the supposed Democrat horse trading compromise “extends our Constitution beyond American soil to our enemies who want to cut the heads off Americans.” Of course, this is ridiculous, and what Gohmert intended to say is that the Constitution itself is no longer required, is in fact dangerous, as it provides black op terrorists with an excuse to cut off our heads, a colorful if entirely fallacious allusion.

But never mind, none of this matters, as the average American is wholly bereft of any sense of loss, and in fact it can be argued he or she does not need the Fourth Amendment as more than likely they will chime “I don’t got nothing to hide,” so why all the fuss? It was like this when Martin Niemoeller supposedly made his famous claim in Nazi Germany. “First they came for the Jews,” and then everybody else, but then it was too late.

Dare I say it is too late in America? Our once cherished, now ignored and largely unknown, Constitution and Bill of Rights are dead numbers. The NSA, CIA, FBI, et al, may snoop on us at will, without legal or moral hindrance, not that it matters to the masses. Most will not receive visits by the Ministry of Homeland Security, receive national security letters, or be sent packing to a FEMA camp, if it ever comes to that. Most will, however, suffer the results, as did the people of Germany—roundly fire-bombed, defeated, and reviled around the world for years to come.

The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 -- Both Conservatives and Liberals Endorse Ron Paul’s Bill to Uphold the Constitution

by Larry Greenley, JBS - Oct 20, 2007

On October 15, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 "To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers."

Follow this link to the original source: "American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007"

COMMENTARY:

On October 15, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (H.R. 3835) "To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers."

The issues addressed by this bill are:

* Military Commissions; Enemy Combatants; Habeas Corpus;

* Torture or Coerced Confessions;

* Intelligence Gathering;

* Presidential Signing Statements;

* Kidnaping, Detentions, and Torture Abroad;

* Journalist Exception to Espionage Act; and

* Use of Secret Evidence to Make Foreign Terrorist Designations.

On March 20, 2007, a group of nationally known conservatives (Bruce Fein, David Keene, Richard Viguerie, and Bob Barr) announced the formation of the American Freedom Agenda (AFA), a campaign to restore governmental checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the Bush administration. The same day, the AFA "outlined a legislative package that would bind the current and all future occupants of the White House, irrespective of party affiliation, to restore congressional oversight, personal civil liberties, and governmental checks and balances...."

At the same meeting AFA unveiled a "Freedom Pledge" based on the principles contained in its legislative package, which it planned to issue to all presidential candidates of both parties to sign. It was also revealed that Rep. Ron Paul, who had already announced his candidacy for president, had already signed the "Freedom Pledge." Ron Paul's American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 closely reflects the AFA's legislative package.

In the meantime, in July a group with a similar name and purpose was launched by some well-known liberals. The group is called the American Freedom Campaign. Its purpose is surprisingly similar to that of the American Freedom Agenda. Its founders include Wes Boyd, co-founder of Moveon.org; David Fenton, William Haseltine, and Naomi Wolf.

Wolf has already strongly endorsed Ron Paul�s American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 bill:

There are two new organizations that are driving a grassroots push to restore the rule of law: the American Freedom Agenda was started by leaders who are conservative: Bruce Fein, who was a Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice, and others. The American Freedom Campaign was started by progressives. Both groups advance comparable 10 point legislative agendas that would stabilize democracy long enough for us to forestall the worst and regroup for more long-term reparation of the Constitution and the rule of law.... The big news is that this idea can now become a law and a law creates a reality.

On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul, the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses, introduced the AFA's legislative package into Congress.... It is the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007, and you should read it in its entirety: just as accounts of the recent abuses send chills down your spine, this beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.

Earlier today the John Birch Society sent out an email alert in support of the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. The Birch Society has also added "Support the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007" to the action items under its JBS.org Freedom Campaign.

Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!

by Naomi Wolfe - Oct 18, 2007

It's not every day that there is something concrete you can do to save democracy in one powerful stroke and make sure your kids don't come of age in an American in which we are no longer protected by the rule of law. I have been writing about the terrifying and precipitous assault on our liberties and our very system of checks and balances; I have crossed the country with this message -- today I am in Boston -- and I have heard across the nation that (as usual) the people are ahead of the leaders and the pundits. Americans of all backgrounds are alarmed and outraged and ready to take action against these vicious assaults on the rule of law. But what I hear again and again is: "What can we do?"

Here is what you can do, and it is big, big news. If we do this together in our millions we are safer; and if we fail to act we miss an historic opening and risk far worse to come.

There are two new organizations that are driving a grassroots push to restore the rule of law: the American Freedom Agenda was started by leaders who are conservative: Bruce Fein, who was a Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice, and others. The American Freedom Campaign was started by progressives. Both groups advance comparable 10 point legislative agendas that would stabilize democracy long enough for us to forestall the worst and regroup for more long-term reparation of the Constitution and the rule of law. Both would, if passed, protect Americans from the scary stories of abuse and recrimination I am hearing every single day -- journalists intimidated, prisoners tortured, innocent citizens spied on by the State in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both would make it illegal for any administration to commit the kinds of crimes against America and its constitution that we have seen under this one: the innocent lawyer Brandon Mayfield's home broken into, the innocent software engineer Maher Arar kept prisoner by U.S. agents in an interrogation cell in a U.S. airport and prevented from calling his lawyer, and journalists reporting on abuses by the government threatened by the state with prosecution that could keep them in jail for a decade. Urgently it would close the horrific legal possibility for the president to call you or me an "enemy combatant" tomorrow -- JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO -- and lock us up in solitary confinement for years.

Passing the legislative agenda of either group would make it clear that American citizens -- in spite of a heretofore craven and compliant Congress -- refuse to stand by silently while a group of criminals systematically violates the core structure of the democracy our Founders put in place for us.

The big news is that this idea can now become a law and a law creates a reality.

On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul, the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses, introduced the AFA's legislative package into Congress. (The mainstream press has an irrational habit of disparaging outsider candidates -- as if corrupt money and machine endorsements equal seriousness of purpose -- even though the Founders hoped that the system they established would lead citizens, ideally those unembedded in the establishment, to offer their service to the nation.) It is the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 [PDF], and you should read it in its entirety: just as accounts of the recent abuses send chills down your spine, this beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.

What does it do? According to an alert put out by the American Freedom campaign, it would accomplish the following:

"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."

Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way -- and all credit is due to him for getting there first. May the others of both parties race to follow his lead. These days, as we have seen from how reluctant some candidates have been -- even on the Democratic sign -- even to sign a mere pledge to uphold the Constitution, it takes some courage to stand fast against the assaults of this administration -- and their manipulations of the terms "patriotism" and "terror threat" -- and insist with legislation on the Founders' vision and on restoring democracy.

A groundswell of millions of Americans of all parties rising up to insist on passage of the AFA legislation means that we are awake -- we get it -- and that we assert that an alert citizenry, not a whipped-dog Congress or a violently abusive executive, decides what happens in this nation still. I am not a voter on his side of the ballot -- but I will move heaven and earth to support the passage of this lifesaving agenda. (Interestingly when I run into Paul's supporters -- who are deeply alert to the abuses of democracy -- and I demur by saying I am a Democrat, it is they who rightly assure me that these issues transcend party).

There is no way to overstate how crucial this piece of legislation is. We are at a turning point, and without the restoration of the rule of law the "blueprint" for what I have called a "fascist shift" -- the closing down of democracy -- calls for scarier recriminations against citizens, greater tightening of social controls -- the ever-growing, disturbingly political TSA watch list is, alarmingly, due to go from the airlines' administration to that of the TSA itself -- and more corruptions of the electoral process. Blackwater is a truly terrifying wild card. Without the rule of law we will be powerless as each of these assaults on liberty continue to escalate. With it we can fight back.

This is the answer both to those who say "What we can do?" and to those who claim (actually, sometimes whine) "there is nothing we can do." And if we don't act on this now we will get the democracy we deserve -- which is no democracy at all.

Put aside your partisan ideal world -- sometimes issues simply transcend partisanship -- and if ever there is an issue that is above and separate from party politics, it is the restoration of the democratic system we inherited. There are good people and passionate patriots across the political spectrum.

We at the AFC are putting out a call to pass this set of laws. Pick up the phone -- every day. Email your representative -- every day. Let them hear from millions of Americans a day. Let them hear from twenty. Please play hardball -- the times demand it and nice girls and boys have managed to get this Congress to do literally nothing at all to protect liberty.

Congressmen and women say off the record that they can't support liberty, much as they'd like to, because they are scared of "looking soft on terror" and they want to run out the clock -- a naive and self-serving posture in a time of crisis. Make them more scared of you if they don't. Tell them you will bombard their donors with the message that they have sold out liberty. Tell them you will denounce them as traitors to the Constitution in your local and regional letters to the editor and op-eds. Tell them they are unpatriotic to stand by while liberty is disemboweled. Tell them you will stop at nothing to ensure their future defeat unless they support this and make it the law of the land.

Let's do it. There is no excuse now. The restoration of democracy is up to you -- as the Founders intended it should be.

Israel's draft constitution ignores crucial question of who is a Jew

by Shahar Ilan, - Oct 15, 2007

The draft constitution being prepared by the Knesset Constitution Committee will not include the Law of Return, in order to forestall an argument over the "who is a Jew" issue. Instead, it will include a general statement that "every Jew is entitled to immigrate to Israel."

However, the committee plans to submit a revised version of the Law of Return to the Knesset along with the proposed constitution. The proposed revision would replace the "grandchild clause," which entitles all grandchildren of Jews to immigrate, with a clause entitling anyone who belongs to a Jewish community to immigrate.

Thus far, the proposed preamble to the constitution does not include any mention of equality, since there is a major argument between religious and secular parties over the right to equality.

Another matter that is being hotly debated is the definition of the state's character. Most committee members want to define Israel as a "Jewish state," but rightist MKs are demanding that it be defined as the "state of the Jewish nation." They also want to split Israel's current definition as a "Jewish and democratic state" into two separate articles, one dealing with its Jewish character and one with its democratic character.

Committee Chairman Menachem Ben-Sasson has proposed that the state's symbol, the menorah, include the name "Israel" in both Hebrew and Arabic. Currently, the name only appears in Hebrew.

No votes have yet been taken on the preamble, nor are any expected in the next few months.

To see the preamble to Israel's constitution, click here.

Ron Paul Preaches Adherence To Constitution

by Mark Anderson - July 30, 2007

THE MEANING AND IMPACT of Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential bid is becoming clearer by the day, as Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk” resonates deeply with a diverse spectrum of Americans and changes the political climate in a way that makes establishment candidates appear dull and unappealing. Pundits and observers reluctantly point out that Paul’s consistent views and adherence to pro-American principles impress voters enough to support him even when they disagree with him on specific issues.

According to Paul himself, in Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun defeated State Sen. John Whitehead in a special election to Congress. How? By sticking to constitutional principles. In other words, the “Ron Paul approach” disarmed a well-funded establishment candidate and allowed a better man to fill a seat in Congress, where constitutionalists are nearly extinct.

“John had all the establishment and money on his side. But [Broun] discussed obedience to the Constitution, limited government, the failure of the national Republican leadership and a less aggressive foreign policy. And he won. Columnist Robert Novak said this ‘terrified’ all the establishment types in the Republican Party,” said Paul, who had talked to Broun during his campaign and was “thrilled” to congratulate him on his victory.

“There is a new wind blowing,” Paul said in a news release posted at ronpaul.com. “Our bottom-up campaign—not top-down in the usual official fashion—has gotten far bigger and more successful, at a faster rate, than even I dreamed. And the sky is the limit. Don’t we owe it to our great forebears, and to our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren down through the generations, not to lose our country? We can win the fight for the ideals of the founders. We can have freedom, peace and prosperity. We can be blessed by our fellow citizens, and by all those who come after us.”

Paul’s campaign press secretary, Jesse Benton said the Broun-Paul issue underscores the power of truth.

“There are a lot of parallels between Ron and Dr. Broun,” Benton told American Free Press. “Both are medical doctors; both are strict constitutionalists. It’s a strong indicator that if a real constitutionalist runs, they can overcome establishment backing and deep pockets of campaign finance.”

Indeed, the establishment flagship, The Wall Street Journal, ran a July 23 commentary by John Fund, who wrote that Dr. Broun told him: “The race boiled down to someone who represented the status quo versus someone who wanted to vote for change.”

Fund noted that Broun “prevailed by using direct mail and telephone messages to go over the heads of party leaders with a pledge that, once in Congress, he would apply a four-way test before voting on any bill: Is it constitutional and a proper function of government? Is it morally correct? Is it something we really need? Is it something we can afford? He has said that, like libertarian congressman and fellow physician Ron Paul of Texas, he will always carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with him and consult it before voting. In an effort to limit pork-barrel ‘earmark’ projects, he says he will even apply that standard to requests for federal funds made by local officials in his district.

“[Broun] capped off that legislative commitment by offering strong support for efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo [vs. New London] eminent domain decision that upheld the power of local officials to seize private property for private uses. He also strongly endorsed the abolition of the IRS and the replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax.”

Notably, Paul has said repeatedly that he differs on that point, saying he would abolish the IRS and the income tax but would not replace the income tax with anything. He would deeply cut spending so less taxes are needed in the first place.

Interestingly, Fund added: “The conventional wisdom in Washington is that someone in Congress who votes against federal spending that isn’t in accord with the original conception of the Constitution will have trouble getting re-elected. But Rep. Paul, who has made his votes against almost every federal program a centerpiece of his insurgent GOP presidential campaign, says he finds that he gains more votes from people impressed with his consistency than he loses from those upset that he isn’t a passenger
on the federal gravy train.”

AFP takes the approach of setting the constitutional standard and seeing who reaches it. So far, Paul is the only one to genuinely do so, objectively speaking. AFP makes no election predictions either way. The Constitution is the basic thing to which all officials take a sworn oath to uphold and defend. News reporting should observe that standard as the measure of a candidate. Anything else becomes a mere battle of personalities, as well as repackaged legislative tinkering that has had its chance in the public domain and failed.

Benton also noted another parallel: Broun won due in part to the support he got from a combination of traditional conservatives, libertarians, assorted constitutionalists and even progressives.

This same combination, ranging from the age of 18 to the elderly, also is supporting Paul. Benton said many progressives who are bored by the Democratic presidential candidates were initially attracted to Paul by his anti-war stance but are sticking with him because of his apparent integrity and championing of liberty.

“He’s not a packaged politician” and they know that, Benton told AFP.