¿LAS PIRÁMIDES SON OBRA DE UNA SUPERCIVILIZACIÓN?

Se usaron bloques de 100 y hasta 200 T. traídos de una cantera a 30 km. Están alineadas perfectamente con los puntos cardinales y el Cinturón de Orión. Los egipcios de esa época ni siquiera conocían el Hierro.

SOLUCIONES

Tú no puedes solucionar unos problemas con el mismo nivel de CONSCIENCIA que los creó. -Albert Einstein

EL HOMBRE QUE PIENSA POR SÍ MISMO

El hombre más peligroso para cualquier gobierno es el capaz de reflexionar... Casi inevitablemente, llegará a la conclusión de que el gobierno bajo el que vive es deshonesto, loco e intolerable. -H. L. Mencken

ESTRUCTURA SOCIAL PIRAMIDAL

Nuestro mundo está organizado de tal modo que una pequeña élite controla al resto a través de una jerarquía de jefes sobre otros jefes hasta llegar a los obreros en la base. El nivel de conocimiento separa a unos niveles de otros. -David Icke

GOBIERNO MUNDIAL O NUEVO ORDEN MUNDIAL

El objetivo de las élites es crear un gobierno mundial dictatorial, fascista, donde el Estado Policial es omnipresente y las libertades individuales no existen. -David Icke

NEGACIONISMO O ESCEPTICISMO CÍNICO

Condenar algo sin investigarlo previamente es la cota más alta de la ignorancia. -Albert Einstein

MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN

La Opinión Pública lo es todo. Si está a tu favor, nada podrá salir mal. Si está en tu contra, nada podrá tener éxito. El que moldea la Opinión Pública tiene un mayor poder que el que hace las leyes. -Abraham Lincoln

RESPONSABILIDAD PERSONAL

Tú debes convertirte en el cambio que quieres ver en el mundo. -Mahatma Gandhi

EL PODER DE LA PROPAGANDA

Debe hacerse tan popular y tan simple que hasta el más estúpido la pueda entender. A la gente se la puede convencer de que el Paraíso es el Infierno, o a la inversa, de que la vida más horrible es el Paraíso. -Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

REPETIDORES

La mayoría de la gente es OTRA gente. Sus pensamientos son la opinión de otros, sus vidas una imitación, sus pasiones una cita de un libro. -Oscar Wilde

CREENCIAS

En religión y política, la gente casi siempre las adquiere, sin examinarlas, de autoridades que tampoco las han examinado y que, a su vez, las han adquirido de unos terceros cuyas opiniones no valen UNA PUTA MIERDA. -Mark Twain

PIRÁMIDE DE PODER

Es fácil que una pequeña élite controle a una amplia mayoria a través de estructuras jerárquicas donde cada uno se está en su sitio sin moverse y sin interesarse nunca por nada. -David Icke

DEBER

La cobardía pregunta si es seguro, la conveniencia si es cortés, y la vanidad si es popular. Pero la Consciencia pregunta si es JUSTO. Y siempre llega un tiempo donde uno debe tomar una postura que no es nada excepto JUSTA. -M. L. King

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!

¿El atentado del 11-S fue ejecutado por el Gobierno en la Sombra de EEUU a través de infiltrados y aliados al más alto nivel en el ejército, los servicios secretos y los medios de comunicación?

¿MAGOS NEGROS CONTROLAN LA ECONOMÍA MUNDIAL?

¿El Dinero es el único Dios de este mundo porque lo controla TODO? ¿Los banqueros son los nuevos sacerdotes? ¿Los símbolos sagrados y ocultistas en los billetes atraen energías adecuadas a los fines de este clero?

¿EL 11-M FUE UN GOLPE DE ESTADO A FAVOR DEL PSOE?

Hay hechos documentados de sobra que demuestran que ciertos policías, miembros del servicio secreto, periodistas y jueces trabajaron para "dar un golpe de estado mediático" mintiendo, destruyendo pruebas o creando pruebas falsas.

¿ESTAMOS SOLOS EN EL UNIVERSO?

¿Otras especies y civilizaciones nos visitan con frecuencia? ¿Algunos son benéficos, otros son malvados, y la mayoría parece neutral o indiferente? ¿Los gobiernos cierran beneficiosos tratos mientras lo niegan todo?

¿NUESTRAS ÉLITES NO SON HUMANAS?

Con fama de endogámicos, herméticos, arrogantes, de "sangre azul", ¿nuestros líderes y reyes pertenecen a una raza distinta, con amplios y ancestrales conocimientos sobre la Realidad y lo Oculto?

¿NUESTROS POLÍTICOS SON TÍTERES?

¿Gente tan increíblemente estúpida e incompetente trabaja para "Amos Ocultos" que mueven sus hilos y a los que deben pagar los favores recibidos? ¿El "juego político" es una farsa para anestesiarnos?

¿SUPERTECNOLOGÍA EN LA ANTIGÜEDAD?

Es un hecho científico demostrable que ESTO no lo pudieron hacer tipos con lianas, troncos y herramientas de bronce. Tampoco podemos reproducirlo con nuestra tecnología actual.

sábado, 3 de mayo de 2014

SSRIs taken during pregnancy may cause autism

Fuentes:

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/ssris-taken-during-pregnancy-may-cause-autism/

http://www.naturalnews.com/044948_SSRIs_pregnancy_autism.html

Información:

SSRIs taken during pregnancy may cause autism

Friday 02 May 2014
‘A study of nearly 1,000 mother-child pairs by researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, otherwise known as SSRIs — which are frequently prescribed for depression, anxiety and other mental disorders — was associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and developmental delays in boys.
The study, which was published in the online version of the journal Pediatrics, examined data from large samples of ASD and delayed development diagnoses by trained clinicians using validated standard instruments, Science Daily reported.’
SSRIs

SSRIs taken during pregnancy may cause autism

Thursday, May 01, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: SSRIspregnancyautism


(NaturalNews) A study of nearly 1,000 mother-child pairs by researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, otherwise known as SSRIs -- which are frequently prescribed for depression, anxiety and other mental disorders -- was associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and developmental delays in boys.


The study, which was published in the online version of the journal Pediatrics, examined data from large samples of ASD and delayed development diagnoses by trained clinicians using validated standard instruments, Science Daily reported.



Researchers included 966 mother-child pairs from the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) Study, which is a population-based control study originating at the University of California-Davis' MIND Institute.



Scientists and researchers broke the data into three groups: Those diagnosed with ASD, those with developmental delays and those with prototypical development. Children ranged in ages from two to five years old.



Three times as likely in boys



A majority of the children studied were boys -- 82.5 percent in the ASD group were boys, 65.6 percent in the developmentally delayed group were boys, and 85.6 percent in the typical development group were boys. And while the study did include girls, the substantially higher findings in boys suggest that that there is a possible gender difference in the effect of prenatal SSRI exposure.



"We found prenatal SSRI exposure was nearly 3 times as likely in boys with ASD relative to typical development, with the greatest risk when exposure took place during the first trimester," said Li-Ching Lee, Ph.D., Sc.M., a psychiatric epidemiologist in the Bloomberg School's Department of Epidemiology. "SSRI was also elevated among boys with DD, with the strongest exposure effect in the third trimester."



Analysis of the data was completed by Rebecca Harrington, Ph.D, M.P.H., in conjunction with her doctoral dissertation and the Bloomberg school; Dr. Lee was an advisor to her project.



Scientists have said that serotonin is crucial to early brain development; as such, any exposure during pregnancy to anything that influences serotonin levels can then have an effect on birth and developmental outcomes.



The prevalence of ASD continues to rise, scientists note. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1 in 68 children in the U.S. has been identified as having ASD. It is nearly five times more common among boys than girls, the CDC says.



One may question whether the increased use of SSRIs in recent years, then, could be a contributor to the dramatic increase in the incidence of ASD.



'Study highlights challenge for women and their doctors'



"This study provides further evidence that in some children, prenatal exposure to SSRIs may influence their risk for developing an autism spectrum disorder," said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Ph.D., M.P.H., chief of the Division of Environmental and Occupational Health in the UC-Davis Department of Public Health Sciences and a researcher at the UC-Davis MIND Institute.



"This research also highlights the challenge for women and their physicians to balance the risks versus the benefits of taking these medications, given that a mother's underlying mental-health conditions also may pose a risk, both to herself and her child," Hertz-Picciotto added.



Regarding treatment modalities, the study's authors note that maternal depression itself can carry some risks for the fetus, and that the benefits of using SSRIs during pregnancy should then be weighed carefully against the potential harm (though, in all seriousness, SSRIs carry much more risk than any potential benefit).



The researchers further noted that large sample studies are necessary in order to properly investigate the effects of SSRIs on girls with ASD. Limitations in this study included "the difficulty in isolating SSRI effects from those of their indications for use, lack of information on SSRI dosage precluded dose-response analyses, and the relatively small sample of DD children resulted in imprecise estimates of association, which should be viewed with caution," Science Daily reported.


Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com


Heroes No More: Community Police Have Transformed Into Paramilitary Thugs

Fuentes:

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/heroes-no-more-community-police-have-transformed-into-paramilitary-thugs/

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Heros_No_More%3A_Community_Police_Have_Transformed_Into_Paramilitary_Thugs/34875/0/0/0/Y/M.html

Información:

Heroes No More: Community Police Have Transformed Into Paramilitary Thugs

Friday 02 May 2014
‘You will often here talk about respect for the police. In the United States we enshrine the officers hired to protect us as the vigilant heroes of our community. The underappreciated guardians that watch us while we sleep. We make movies and television shows about them and tell our children that they are heroes.
Even the Police themselves seize upon this image. On NYPD Police cars you will often see the acronym CPR (Courtesy Professionalism and Respect) and on others across the nation you will see the common “to protect and to serve.”
The problem with this is that the Police are no longer worthy of the respect of the people. When I see an officer I no longer respect him, I fear him. I fear his power and I wonder if he’s going to arbitrarily decide to ruin my day, or even my life. He has the power, and one only need to look as far as google for a litany of human rights and abuses against human dignity perpetrated by the police.’

HEROS NO MORE: COMMUNITY POLICE HAVE TRANSFORMED INTO PARAMILITARY THUGS

April 30, 2014
Share It | Print This
     

BY REBECCA MICKLEY, BLACKLISTEDNEWS



You will often here talk about respect for the police. In the United States we enshrine the officers hired to protect us as the vigilant heroes of our community. The underappreciated guardians that watch us while we sleep. We make movies and television shows about them and tell our children that they are heroes.
Even the Police themselves seize upon this image. On NYPD Police cars you will often see the acronym CPR  (Courtesy Professionalism and Respect)  and on others across the nation you will see the common “to protect and to serve.” 

The problem with this is that the Police are no longer worthy of the respect of the people. When I see an officer I no longer respect him, I fear him. I fear his power and I wonder if he’s going to arbitrarily decide to ruin my day, or even my life. He has the power, and one only need to look as far as google for a litany of human rights and abuses against human dignity perpetrated by the police.

That is not to say that all cops are bad but the problem, dear reader, is that we cannot know which cops are good or bad without experience, and that has become a risk. No longer part of the community, the police have elevated themselves to paramilitary knights and lords that oversee the serfs that were once the civilians in the community they are supposed to be serving.  This is a terrible perversion of law enforcement culture in our country and has come on the heels of the American Drug War and the War on Terror.

The American People in a fit of ingenuity and desperation have turned to filming the police as a last line of defense against this oppression and are being met almost universally with violence and intimidation. Just recently, a civilian was filming the police as they made an arrest and he too ended up arrested for Obstruction of Justice even though it is clear from the video he was on private property, he obeyed the officer’s instructions immediately and was over 20 feet from the arrest.  The officer entered on private property, said he was intimidating him and arrested him. This is but one in a litany of sins that the American people are forced to endure from those we expect to protect us. 

This is an awful tragedy, because we no longer can feel safe, not from the criminals, but from the ones that we ask to protect us. When our guardians become tyrants, it is high time to examine our government and ourselves and loudly demand that these abuses end. This is not meant to be who we are as a country. Never once did our founding fathers intend that we must quake in fear of authority. 

I leave you, dear reader, with a quote from a man that said it better than me…

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”  ―Thomas Jefferson











The deadly diesel deception: We were bullied into buying diesel cars to help fight global warming. Now experts say this ‘green’ fuel is killing thousands of us

Fuentes:

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/the-deadly-diesel-deception-we-were-bullied-into-buying-diesel-cars-to-help-fight-global-warming-now-experts-say-this-green-fuel-is-killing-thousands-of-us/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2617425/The-deadly-diesel-deception-We-bullied-buying-diesel-cars-help-fight-global-warming-Now-experts-say-green-fuel-killing-thousands-us.html

Información:

The deadly diesel deception: We were bullied into buying diesel cars to help fight global warming. Now experts say this ‘green’ fuel is killing thousands of us

Friday 02 May 2014
‘This week, Professor Frank Kelly, chairman of the Department of Health’s committee on air pollution, said diesel engines could be responsible for more than 7,000 deaths a year because of the pollutants they emit. He added that governments had taken the ‘wrong route’ for decades by encouraging drivers to switch from petrol.
It is a view backed up by Martin Williams, professor of air quality at King’s College London. ‘In hindsight the switch to diesel was a mistake,’ he says. ‘In the past 20 years we’ve had far more toxic emissions from cars than we should have done.’
How did such a dirty, noisy and dangerous technology fool so many experts?
The reason appears to be that car makers, governments and environmental groups were so wrapped up in the mania for reducing carbon dioxide emissions that their ‘experts’ managed to overlook the other highly toxic pollutants that diesel engines produce.’

The deadly diesel deception: We were bullied into buying diesel cars to help fight global warming. Now experts say this 'green' fuel is killing thousands of us


A motorist filling his van with diesel. Increasingly it seems that we have all been conned (file picture)
A motorist filling his van with diesel. Increasingly it seems that we have all been conned (file picture)
Many years ago we upgraded our car for a larger diesel model. Three children, along with pushchairs, travel cots and child seats meant we no longer fitted inside a 'family' car and we ended up with a people carrier.

Our first-ever diesel was a tank. It handled like a bad-tempered elephant, smelt like a dirty chip shop and rattled like a pneumatic drill.

But despite the noise and sluggish performance, we believed the sacrifice was worth it because it was a greener car, emitting less of the global-warming gas carbon dioxide than petrol models, and was kinder to the environment and our wallets.

We weren't alone. Thanks to clever marketing, a dramatic improvement in the performance of diesel engines, and tax breaks from a succession of governments obsessed with reducing carbon dioxide emissions, Britain has experienced an extraordinary 'dash for diesel' over the past 15 years.

Today, half of the two million new cars bought each year in the UK are diesel, compared with just 18 per cent in 2001. There are nine million diesel cars on the road — more than at any time in history — and three million diesel vans.

But increasingly it seems that we have all been conned.

Pollution

For now that the Government has successfully persuaded us to invest in diesel, it has emerged that the fuel is not only less efficient than we were led to believe, but dirtier and more damaging to the environment than petrol. So much so, in fact, that it is killing us in our tens of thousands.

This week, Professor Frank Kelly, chairman of the Department of Health's committee on air pollution, said diesel engines could be responsible for more than 7,000 deaths a year because of the pollutants they emit. He added that governments had taken the 'wrong route' for decades by encouraging drivers to switch from petrol.

It is a view backed up by Martin Williams, professor of air quality at King's College London. 'In hindsight the switch to diesel was a mistake,' he says. 'In the past 20 years we've had far more toxic emissions from cars than we should have done.'

How did such a dirty, noisy and dangerous technology fool so many experts?

The reason appears to be that car makers, governments and environmental groups were so wrapped up in the mania for reducing carbon dioxide emissions that their 'experts' managed to overlook the other highly toxic pollutants that diesel engines produce.

Californian research last year found a link between pollutants in diesel fumes and autism
Californian research last year found a link between pollutants in diesel fumes and autism

It is undeniable that diesel engines are around 20 per cent more fuel-efficient than petrol engines, so they generate less carbon dioxide per mile.

That is why governments encouraged everyone to switch over from petrol by using tax incentives. Petrol vehicles with low fuel economy and high carbon dioxide emissions were penalised with a higher road tax, while diesels with low emissions were placed in a lower tax band. Indeed, diesel cars with the lowest carbon dioxide emissions were not subject to road tax at all.

I am no global warming denier. I believe that climate change is taking place and agree that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But not at any cost.

And the cost of the switch to diesel is terrifying.

Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of thousands of gases and fine particles that contains more than 40 toxic air contaminants. These include cancer-causing substances such as benzene, arsenic and formaldehyde, as well as other seriously harmful pollutants.

The microscopic particles in diesel exhaust are less than one-fifth the thickness of a human hair, small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, causing inflammation, asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes, and worsening lung disease in the elderly and young. The World Health Organisation says long-term exposure to these particles — called PM2.5s because they are just two-and-a-half thousands of a millimetre across — alters the way children's brains grow and could make them less intelligent.

Californian research last year found a link between pollutants in diesel fumes and autism.

Other U.S. studies have shown that adults exposed to PM2.5s suffer a greater loss of mental faculties than those living away from pollution. The exhausts also spew out nitrogen dioxide, a substance that irritates lungs and reduces our ability to fight disease.

For people living near busy roads, the fumes are a constant nightmare.

Dangerous

There have been attempts to clean up diesel. In 2009, new rules meant every diesel car had to fit particulate filters that trap some of the most dangerous particles. Even tougher rules are coming in the next couple of years.

But the benefits of filters have been overstated. In urban driving they work less well and clog up quickly. And even with the tougher European rules, diesel vehicles will remain far more polluting than petrol.

This is why an increasing number of air-quality experts are calling for a switch back  to petrol.

The AA points out that the typical driver can save 10 per cent on fuel and carbon emissions without switching to diesel simply by driving more sensibly, pumping up their tyres and sticking to the speed limit.

The consumer association Which? has also shown that the fuel efficiency claimed by manufacturers of diesel vehicles should be taken with a pinch of salt. When it tested the official EU laboratory-based fuel efficiency figures against the reality of running a car on Britain's roads, the differences were staggering.

Ford claimed that its diesel Ford Fiesta managed 76mpg on a mix of urban and main roads. Which? showed the real figure was 63mpg. The Vauxhall Astra diesel was supposed to do 69mpg. Which? said the actual figure was 13mpg lower.

Again and again, the published figures — particularly for diesels — were too optimistic.

'The quoted figures you see in adverts are based on a European test cycle which all vehicles have to go through,' explains Professor Williams. 'But it's based on driving a car on rollers, not on the road. You don't get the accelerations and decelerations of the real world and they are not realistic.'

The Which? probe unearthed another dirty diesel secret.

It's well known that diesels are typically £2,000 dearer in the showroom, while the fuel costs around 7p per litre more than petrol.

Critical

In the long run, however, they are supposed to save you money, particularly if you use them for long journeys. But Which? found the benefits didn't always outweigh the costs.

For example, the owners of a new Astra who do an average mix of urban and main-road driving would need to keep it for nine years or drive it 100,000 miles before recouping the extra costs. For a Ford Fiesta the figure was eight years.

On top of all this, it has now been discovered that diesel cars could contribute very much more to global warming than scientists first thought. The tiny particles of soot — or 'black carbon' — in diesel exhaust are now believed to be second only to carbon dioxide in their ability to cause global warming.

Sadly, when it comes to the environment, politicians and pundits often lose any grip on their critical faculties. They blindly support the latest supposed panacea for our ills — then force us to adopt it, with often grotesque consequences.

In the light of mounting evidence that this supposedly green fuel is not so green after all — in fact, it is quite the opposite — surely the Government should do everything it can to put an end to the folly of the dash for diesel.


Cop steals $8,000 watch while responding to jewelry store break-in

Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold the Constitution: Allows Indefinite Detention

Fuentes:

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/supreme-court-refuses-to-uphold-the-constitution-allows-indefinite-detention/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/ndaa.html

Información:

Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold the Constitution: Allows Indefinite Detention

Friday 02 May 2014
‘Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges – along with journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, activist Tangerine Bolen and others – sued the government to join the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans.
The trial judge in the case asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys.
The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.
The trial judge ruled that the indefinite detention bill was unconstitutional. But the court of appeal overturned that decision, based upon the assumption that limited the NDAA to non-U.S. citizens:’

Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold the Constitution: Allows Indefinite Detention

http://www.theispot.com/images/source/FredaLibertyUpended1.jpgPainting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

“We Are No Longer a Nation Ruled By Laws”

Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges – along with journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, activist  Tangerine Bolen and others – sued the government to join the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans.
The trial judge in the case asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys.
The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.
The trial judge ruled that the indefinite detention bill was unconstitutional, holding:
This Court rejects the government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.
But the court of appeal overturned that decision, based upon the assumption that limited the NDAA to non-U.S. citizens:
We thus conclude, consistent with the text and buttressed in part by the legislative history, that Section 1021 [of the 2012 NDAA] means this: With respect to individuals who are not citizens, are not lawful resident aliens, and are not captured or arrested within the United States, the President’s [Authorization for Use of Military Force] authority includes the authority to detain those responsible for 9/11 as well as those who were 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—a detention authority that Section 1021 concludes was granted by the original AUMF. But with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section 1021 simply says nothing at all.
The court of appeal ignored the fact that the co-sponsors of the indefinite detention law said it does applyto American citizens, and that top legal scholars agree.
Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case, thus blessing and letting stand the indefinite detention law stand unchanged.
The court of appeal’s Orwellian reasoning may sound – at first blush -  like it might be a good thing.    After all,  the court said there’s no indication that the indefinite detention provision will be applied against U.S. citizens.
However, by refusing to strike down the law and insist that any future laws explicitly exempt U.S. citizens, it leaves discretion in the hands of the executive branch.
The effect of the decision will be to allow the U.S. government to kidnap and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens who protest or dissent against the government … and the courts will never hear any legal challenge from the prisoners.  The detainee will not get to say:
The courts said the indefinite detention law isn’t written to apply to U.S. citizens, so you have to let me go!
And he won’t get to say:
You’re confusing me with another John Smith, and I can prove it!
After all, prisoners can be held under the indefinite detention bill without trial, without being allowed to present evidence or hearing the evidence against them, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen with any crime.
So – if you’re thrown into a hole somewhere – no one will even hear your story.
Chris Hedges noted in November:
If [the indefinite detention law] stands it will mean, as [the trial judge] pointed out in her 112-page opinion, that whole categories of Americans—and here you can assume dissidents and activists—will be subject to seizure by the military and indefinite and secret detention.
Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead agrees:
No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.
If you think they’re crying wolf,  just remember that the CIA director relabeled “dissidents” as “terrorists”  in 1972 so that he could continue spying on them … and nothing has changed.
Daniel Ellsberg notes that Obama’s claimed power to indefinitely detain people without charges or access to a lawyer or the courts is a power that even King George – the guy we fought the Revolutionary War against – didn’t claim.  And former judge and adjunct professor of constitutional law Andrew Napolitano points out that Obama’s claim that he can indefinitely detain prisoners even after they are acquitted of their crimes is a power that even Hitler and Stalin didn’t claim.
Access to justice is already being severely curtailed in America.  Even when the prisoner is afforded a trial,  it is becoming more and more common for the government to prosecute cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant, his lawyer … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.  The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorismcharges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even to assassinate people. And see this and thisSecret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs. Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret.
But prisoners under the indefinite detention bill have it much worse:  they don’t get any trial or opportunity to talk to a judge, any access to a lawyer … or perhaps any information about what they’re even accused of doing or why they were nabbed in the first place.
After the Supreme Court published its decision, Tangerine Bolen wrote:
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear, first via Citizens United, then most recently via McCutcheon v. FTC, that corporations are “persons” whose “free speech” must be protected at all costs – including the cost of democracy – while our rights – the rights of living, breathing people, the fundamental right of due process and our fundamental rights of free speech and association – those no longer matter. They are to be trampled.
Under the war on terror, the United States government has trampled upon the fundamental human rights of people around the world since 9/11. The Bush administration manufactured a false war based on carefully crafted lies, false evidence and sickening manipulation. In the wake of that war, our courts prefer to continue to defer to a disingenuous national security narrative that has arisen out of the lies, paranoia, and incredible lawbreaking of our own government, including kidnapping, torturing, indefinitely imprisoning, and assassinating people with impunity – all of this against both reason and international law.
We are no longer a nation ruled by laws. [She's right.] We are nation ruled by men who have so steeped themselves in a false narrative that at the same time they are exponentially increasing the ranks of terrorists, they are destroying the rule of law itself. [Indeed, we’ve gone from a nation of laws to anation of powerful men making one-sided laws to protect their own interests … in secret. Government folks are using laws to crush dissent. It’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.] It is madness upon madness – the classic tale of becoming the evil you purport to fight while believing you remain righteous.
We have tried to stand up to this madness: we are outnumbered, outspent, and outgunned – a David intrepidly fighting a Goliath that spans the planet and has the power to shape our “reality” – thus shaping what the courts even see. We have sacrificed greatly to do this – and yet we would do it all again.