by Philip Giraldi, The Unz Review:
The Framers of the United States Constitution understood several things very clearly from their experience as a colonial vassal state with only limited legislative or self-governing authority under the rule of Britain’s King George III. That principle lesson learned, justifying a revolution, was that the leader or ruler of a nation must not be allowed to unilaterally initiate armed conflicts because war is the greatest calamity that can afflict a nation and its people. That was why the US president under the balance of powers had no ability under the Constitution to initiate a war on his or her own authority. It required an act of war approved by Congress with the legislature also providing the funding and most of the manpower through voluntary levies from the state militias as the national army was deliberately small.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
And why might a revolution be needed apart from negating the propensity of kings to go to war? A constitutional government in this case was devised as a mechanism to protect fundamental rights and liberties, which at least some of the Founders considered to be inalienable and granted by the Creator to all human beings. The most important of those rights was freedom of speech, which rightly was featured as the First Amendment to the Constitution leading off the ten liberties that comprised the Bill of Rights. That American citizens should have the right to speak their minds was considered essential to their concept of freedom, particularly when it encompassed the right to protest at what the government was doing.
We all know how attempts to institutionalize the type of centralized control evident in eighteenth century Britain began to creep into the American democracy soon after the Revolutionary War ended, leading to a set of four federal laws called collectively the Alien and Sedition Acts enacted in 1798 that applied restrictions to immigration and free speech throughout the United States. The Naturalization Act required immigrants to obtain citizenship, the Alien Friends Act granted to the president the power to imprison and deport non-citizens, the Alien Enemies Act empowered the president to detain and even imprison non-citizens during times of war, and the Sedition Act criminalized false and malicious statements about the federal government, ending free speech. The Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act expired after a set number of years, and the Naturalization Act was repealed in 1802. The Alien Enemies Act is still in effect.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were inevitably at that time controversial and the debate lined up along political lines. They were supported by the President John Adams’ Federalist Party which argued that the bills strengthened national security during the undeclared naval war with France from 1798 to 1800. Interestingly, the acts were denounced by the minority Democratic-Republicans as violations of free speech under the First Amendment as they were used to suppress publishers affiliated with the opposition, and several publishers were indeed arrested for criticism of the President and his party. Does that justification to strip citizens of their rights sound familiar? Substitute “war on terror” and Patriot Act plus the undeclared wars in Ukraine and Gaza that Washington appears to believe have something to do with national security.
The lessons to be learned ever since 1798 is that if you want to subvert the restraints on war and individual liberties you have to do it with a whole lot of lies coupled with penalties designed to make possible “complainers” shut up and go away. I would point to the recent treatment of Scott Ritter, Dimitri Simes and Tulsi Gabbard by the Joe Biden Administration involving using “foreign agent” legislation drafted in 1938 to stretch the government’s ability to make claims of foreign interference in the upcoming election that it can hardly back up with facts. The suggestion of criminality also at the same time sought to threaten and intimidate public figures who were critical of policy. And the government is not shy about what it has been doing. In 2022 the Biden Administration sought to establish a Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security and on Monday September 16th Hillary Clinton told her ideological soulmate Rachel Maddow that Americans who share political misinformation, which she called propaganda, should face potential civil – or even criminal – legal consequences.
Another even more powerful example of what will happen by continuing down the road that the United States is proceeding on comes from Britain, where the government has more tools in terms of terrorism, treason and “hate speech” type legislation. The relatively new Keir Starmer national government is as deeply embedded with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s band of war criminals as in President Joe Biden and his gang of war enablers. Lest there be any confusion about what the government is prepared to do to protect that relationship, there have been several arrests of journalists on “terrorism” charges whose only crime is being too outspoken about the genocide that is taking place openly day by day by the Israel Defense Force (IDF) in Gaza. On August 29th 16 police officers, including some from the UK’s elite and armed counter-terrorism unit, arrested pro-Palestinian journalist Sarah Wilkinson under the Terrorism Act 2000, charging her with “terrorist” content she had written and posted online. Her initial bail conditions included not being allowed to use any electronic devices or any form of public transportation. Wilkinson had been advocating for Palestine long before October 7th, but many believe that over the past eleven months the pressure to penalize voices like hers in the UK has increased. Other well-known outspoken figures such as freelance journalist Richard Medhurst and co-founder of Palestine Action Richard Barnard were also arrested in August under the same legislation.
