Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

This nation has a real problem when the head of the FBI can't
answer the question of whether or not the federal government
has the right to arbitrarily kill American citizens that the White
House feels are a threat to the nation under a "substitute form"
of due process that says if a president and his advisers con-
clude an individual is dangerous and poses a national threat,
the president can arbitrarily imprison him without a trial, or kill
him. That's the argument of the Obama White House. There is
no case law that stands for that. There are no statutes that
authorize it, and it directly defies the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution. It's finally happened—Hollywood is now scripting
US law. Is Steven Spielberg going to be the next Attorney General
and Tom Cruise the next Director of the FBI? Is "Minority Re-
port" going to be the law of the land, legalizing the killing of
rightwing patriots before they can overthrow the socialists who
are erasing the Constitution, line-by-line, with impunity?

If the United States Constitution rejects the notion that US presidents have the arbitrary right, as head-of-state, to kill those they view as a threat to America (and, conversely, as a personal threat to them), how can Congress enact a law (The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011) that, first, authorizes the unconstitutional, indefinite detention of Americans living in the United States without due process; and second, give the government the right to execute American citizens in foreign lands—or on US soil—without any charges ever being filed against them? Or without the citizen being arrested, and facing a jury of his or her peers in a court of law? And second, why has the US Supreme Court not arbitrarily stepped in and ruled that The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 is unconstitutional on its face? Must they wait for fascist storm troopers disguised as constitutional law enforcement officers (since US law forbids the US military to act in any law enforcement capacity in the United States) to break into the homes of law-abiding citizens in midnight raids and arrest, without warrant or cause, American citizens who might pose a threat to the nation—or to Barack Obama—who then simply vanishes in the dark of night?

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, on Tues., March 6, 2012 in a speech at Northwestern University Law School, US Attorney General Eric Holder "...manifested extraordinary ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and suggested the president could kill anyone he wants outside the United States if that person is dangerous; if that person has committed crimes; and if its impractical to arrest that person—not in the opinion of a jury, but in the opinion of the president and some secret advisers. The Constitution says to the contrary."

The problem is, Obama senses there is a historic precedent that he can use. The last time in US history that a president claimed he had the right to kill Americans without due process—and did so at will—was Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

Since before his election, when communist-capitalist George Soros first picked him to be president in 2008, Barack Obama has closely studied the published works and private papers of both Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Had Roosevelt not died and had Lincoln not been assassinated, its likely that both would have crushed the Constitution and became dictators. Lincoln by force of arms, and FDR by legislatively creating an unconstitutional 4th branch of government to replace both the legislative and judicial branches of government by giving the Executive Branch the authority to legislate (by putting "skin" on the skeletal laws Congress wrote and creating a mechanism where the Executive Branch departments could assess fines and other penalties on violators of their non-legislated regulations, giving Roosevelt unilateral control over all facets of government—at least until 1935.

Lincoln, on the other hand, simply suspended the Constitution, arrested citizens without due process at will, and became a dictator. Instead of deserving a memorial on the National Mall at 23rd Street and the Potomac Parkway in the nation's capital, Lincoln should have been given a monument more fitting his role from 1860 to 1865—aptly called the Wall of Shame. Historians through the years have revised the real history of Abraham Lincoln to make it fit the perception social progressive historians want Americans to have of the wealthy Jacobin railroad lawyer at a time when the Jacobins (the public face of the Illuminati) seized control of the Congress of the United States in 1856 and attempted to deconstruct the American Republic by abolishing the Constitution and creating superior form of parliamentarian government. Lincoln did what Obama is currently doing—he simply asserted that the Constitution says something different than what actually appears on the document. Obama, we see through Eric Holder's March 6 speech, has given himself the authority to redefine what the Constitution says and, more important, what it means. This makes Barack Obama a very, very dangerous man since his words and actions indicate he fully intends to refuse to allow the Constitutional checks and balances, and the judicial review powers of the US Supreme Court, to deter his agenda.

What is that agenda? The same it was under the Jacobins in 1861—assume dictatorial control of the United States of America by completely destroying the system of federalism established by the nation's Founding Fathers. Lincoln was the role model FDR used in 1933, and both Lincoln and FDR are the role models Obama is using today to complete the task of deconstructing America.

——————————————
Note: while the Federalist Party of John Adams epitomizes Jacobinism in its purest sense, it is interesting that early Federalist writers constantly referred to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party as the "Jacobin Party," comparing it the Jacobins who assisted the Illuminati during the French Revolution, and who helped Maximilien Robespierre seize power in France. During the Presidential Election of 1798 when Adams was campaigning against Jefferson, the Federalist newspapers: the Wilmington Delaware & Eastern Shore Advertiser and the Philadelphia Gazette of the United States constantly referred to Jefferson as a Jacobin, and the newly formed Democratic-Republican Party as the party of the Jacobins when, in point of fact, the northeastern land holders who were related to the crown heads of Europe (and who were expelled from England with vast land grants instead of being executed for treason) had the direct ties to the Illuminati through the Jacobins. The Jacobins came from the landed gentry of England and Scotland who had wealth, were related to royalty but were, themselves not considered "royals" because they were too far removed from the throne-holder to inherit the throne. Many of them assisted the Illuminati in their own quest for political power by deposing their relatives who sat on the thrones of Europe.

If you are looking for a Jacobin today, look not only at the Rockefeller Republicans, but look also at the social progressives who claim to be looking out for the working class (whom they intend to enslave). Remember the politics of Josef Stalin came from the laws of the Illuminati.

In modern US politics, the term Jacobin is used by the left to describe extremists on the right (based on Lincoln's well-buried political ideology). In 1964 the media referred to followers of Sen. Barry Goldwater [R-AZ] as "Cactus Jacobins," and in 2009-10 with the advent of the Tea party, a book entitled "The Tea Party Jacobins" became a popular leftwing buy. In 1976 NBC Nightly News put up the first color map of election results. States won by left-leaning Jimmy Carter lit up red and States won by centrist Gerald Ford lit up in blue. The map became so popular, all of the TV networks adopted the color map. Remember, in 1976, NBC had not yet climbed into bed with the left. CBS had. Their map depicted Democrats in blue and Republicans as red, since the color association with the political philosophy of the Democratic Party was too telling in red. By 1996 CNN, CBS, ABC and the New York Times depicted Republicans as red and Democrats as blue. In 2000, NBC joined their media competitors by erasing all thoughts that the Democrats might be best depicted by their political philosophy—red. After all, the last thing in the world the leftwings wanted when citizens voted was to put a subliminal thought in the voters' minds that Democrats might be communists.