Posts Tagged ‘ “NDAA” ’

Do You Honestly Know Your Constitution and Understand Your Rights?

I was pondering this question today and after hearing from my 10 year old that she had no idea what happened on Sept 11, 2001 I was convinced that most American’s don’t really know their Constitution or their rights. Hence, I am putting up this information!

There’s a wonderful document that I found online. It was originally published by  The Deseret News, 19 March 1945 through 10 April 1945 as a 20 part series and though it may be dated, the message is still the same. What is incredible to me is how…. almost prophetic it was for it’s time! Read “Know Your Constitution”….

This was one of my favorite sections because, as we all well know, this is NOT how things are today!

5. The People Rule

The people order and the king obeys. The people speak and the crown gives ear. The people are the masters, the king their servant. This is the true order of civil government.

The Declaration of Independence, after affirming the existence of inalienable rights, states, “That to secure
these rights. governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The people are sovereign. They say what form of government they will have and what powers it may exercise. The functions of government are to be delegated by them to their representatives and only such of the powers of government as are delegated can be exercised. Sovereignty is to flow from the people to their governments and no longer from the government to the people.

As a nation we need to get back to basics; we need to get the attention of those that “rule” us and let them know that we are taking back our rights. Unfortunately voting for anyone in the upcoming elections will not ensure any message is sent because you have Obama and Romney running….. We need better options!

Advertisements

National Movement Launched To Impeach Obama

Well it’s about time! The man can’t produce any real documents to even show he exists, let alone should be president!

The five core reasons why Obama should be impeached

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, April 12, 2012

A new national movement has been launched to impeach President Obama based around five core issues which clearly demonstrate how Obama has flagrantly violated the Constitution.

The campaign, backed by director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone, is a follow-up to North Carolina Republican Walter Jones’ efforts to bring the administration to account for launching unconstitutional wars without the authorization of Congress. Jones’ recently introduced resolution states that such actions represent “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

The five core reasons for impeachment proceedings to be launched can be summarized as follows;

1) Despite promising otherwise, Barack Obama committed U.S. military resources to overthrow Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi without any kind of congressional authorization whatsoever and without citing any evidence that Libya under Gaddafi was a threat to the security of the United States. Furthermore, Obama brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” Obama churlishly remarked.

2) On New Years Eve 2011, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill.

3) The passage of the Obamacare bill, under which Americans will be forced to buy health insurance, is clearly anathema to the Constitution. “The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme,” writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

4) Obama’s role in the economic looting of America since he took office is unprecedented. Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.

5) Finally, Obama’s use of signing statements shows his desire to continue in the vein of George W. Bush and rule by executive fiat. This is a direct violation of Article II of the Constitution.

You can support this effort to get political momentum behind starting the impeachment process against Obama by forwarding this article and video to your network on Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and every other platform of communication.

If the makers of Kony 2012 can receive international viral coverage for putting out a film that was little more than a veiled call for another unconstitutional invasion, this call to impeach Obama deserves equal attention.

Read further information about the reasons why Obama should be impeached here.

SOURCE

Troops Used For Crowd Control At Texas Kite Festival

Here we go!

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, March 5, 2012

Footage shows Guard soldiers loading children onto school buses

Uniformed troops from the Texas State Guard were used for the purposes of crowd control during the Zilker Kite Festival in Austin this past weekend, with video showing the troops ordering parents and children to board school buses at the end of the event.

Disturbing footage of the troops controlling the movement of attendees was filmed by Infowars reporters, in addition to a police helicopter circling above. However, the website of the Zilker Kite Festival attempted to downplay the Guard’s involvement as if it was completely normal.

Under the headline What are Soldiers doing at the Kite Festival!?, the website states that the troops were there to “help to manage the crowds during bus loading and unloading, at parking lots, and around the event.”

According to the Texas State Guard’s website, “The Texas State Guard (TXSG) mission as a branch of the Texas Military Forces is to provide mission-ready military forces to assist State and local authorities in times of state emergencies, with homeland security and community service through Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA).”

No information concerning the TXSG being present at the Kite Festival appears on the website.

The use of the military to oversee domestic roles normally ascribed to police officers is a sign of America’s deepening decline into a state of de facto martial law.

In 2008 it was announced that U.S. troops returning from duty in Iraq would be carrying out homeland patrols in America for the purposes of helping with “civil unrest and crowd control”. In recent years, budget cuts have also contributed to the increasing use of military assets to conduct routine law enforcement actions.

Military police were used to detain people at the Kentucky Derby horse race in 2009. In April of the same year, 400 Massachusetts National Guardsmen from the 126th Combat Support Battalion were deployed at the Boston Marathon to “maintain order”.

We have documented innumerable examples of Posse Comitatus being violated with uniformed troops increasingly being used to conduct routine traffic stops and provide security at public events across the nation.

The process of loading children onto buses for the purposes of forced relocation is also a scenario that has cropped up time and time again during exercises focused around responding to terror attacks and national emergencies.

During the Operation Mountain Guardian terrorism exercise undertaken in Denver last year, Colorado authorities issued a news advisory that detailed how children would be “processed” in the event of a terror attack by being taken to Denver’s Mile High Stadium.

Infowars reporters Aaron Dykes and Darrin McBreen, who were covering the drill, confirmed that buses marked “special” were used for that purpose.

As part of the same drill, a SWAT team raided a Denver school, terrorizing children as young as first grade with a traumatic and frighteningly realistic school shooter scenario.

Federal exercises have specifically targeted children on a number of occasions, most infamously in Muskegon, Michigan. In 2004, a Michigan county concocted a scenario in which public school children were threatened by a fictitious radical group that believed everyone should be home-schooled, WorldNetDaily reported. The exercise was funded by homeland security grants to area school districts and Muskegon county.

A 2003 Washington Post article revealed how school administrators in the Washington area had told parents they would be “prevented, or strongly discouraged, from picking up their children” in the event of a terrorist attack.

Under the plan, schools would be locked down and parents would not be able to retrieve their children.

Source

Mitt Romney Confronted On NDAA; Secret Service Tells Reporter ‘Out Now’

I suppose THIS is why Mitt Romney needed to be granted Secret Service protection, right? I’d love to know why our tax dollars are being used to protect this moron…. He should be paying for his own damn security. Oh and his answer is great, we need the NDAA to maintain military superiority; really? What in God’s name is he talking about?? Sounds to me like he doesn’t even know what the NDAA is!

Robert Wanek
RobertWanekReports.com
March 3, 2012

The fact Mitt couldn’t address a short question about the NDAA and the Patriot Act is telling enough. I certainly don’t want a president whose Secret Service detail removes voters who voice their opinions, this is still America and dissent should be considered patriotism.

Mitt Romney clearly aims to aid the bankers looting of the taxpayer. He favors central banking over free markets, and meddles in the economy by supporting bailouts over bankruptcy. This man may seem well rounded in the economic department but he works for Wall Street and receives the same support as Mr. Obama from the same banks. A vote for Romney in 2012 is a vote for the status quo, the big banks, and likely higher taxes as well.

Virginia Legislature Votes to Oppose Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial

Yeah!!!! Finally there is a state that had the guts to stand up to the fed’s!

David Wallechinsky, Noel Brinkerhoff
allgov.com
Thursday, March 01, 2012

Lawmakers in Virginia have put aside their partisan differences about health care, contraception and other issues to officially oppose a controversial law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama that allows the federal government to detain Americans without trial for alleged terrorism-related activities.
By votes of 39-1 in the state Senate and 96-4 in the House of Delegates, the legislature approved a bill “to nullify” provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.
The Virginia legislation is largely symbolic, as it does not prevent federal agents from arresting terrorism suspects. But the legislative action is part “of a larger NDAA nullification campaign around the country.”
Seven other legislatures are also considering anti-NDAA bills. In addition, several local governments have passed resolutions that either denouncement the federal act or require noncompliance with it.
As previously reported by AllGov:
Obama’s supporters, including Republicans who normally oppose almost everything he does, have tried to defend the bill by saying that it doesn’t really go as far as its critics claim. However, the wording of the act, although carefully phrased, is nonetheless clear.
For example, Obama apologists say that it does not codify indefinite detention. But section 1021 (c-1) allows “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.” A U.S. president can take the position that he is engaged in a war without end. In fact, that is exactly what Presidents Bush and Obama have done. In addition, section (b-2) states that the law applies not just to members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but to any person who has “substantially supported” “associated forces.” Because these terms are not defined, Obama would appear to be free to interpret them as he chooses…as would be any future president.
Supporters of the president—and the members of Congress of both parties who passed the bill—dismiss the contention that American citizens can be detained indefinitely. Again the wording is clever, but disturbing. Section 1022 (b-1) states that, in regard to U.S. citizens “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” The key word here is “requirement.” In other words, the president still has the option to place Americans in indefinite military detention.
Some Americans may say that terrorism suspects should be stopped using any means necessary, and that if a few innocent people are imprisoned without trial by mistake, it’s unfortunate, but it’s better to be safe than sorry. However, there is now nothing to stop the current president of the United States, or the next one or the one after that, from taking advantage of the wording of the law and the fear of enemies to imprison whomever he chooses.

Latest From the Hill: Congress Criminalizes the Right to Free Assembly

I told my daughter about this and she was screaming “Let’s go protest right now!”.

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
Thursday, March 1, 2012

Strips Basic Protections of First Amendment

It seems like every day brings us one step closer to a totalitarian police state, and today is no exception.

The Daily Crux and Economic Policy Journal have reported on a little known bill that was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives (H.R. 347 vote tally388-3) and the Senate (S.1794 passed with unanimous consent, no voting records were kept of which Senators approved).

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 essentially strips Americans of their right to protest and assemble in government buildings or on public or private grounds where events of “national significance” are taking place. first amendment

The summary of the bill clearly outlines the direct attack on our First Amendment protections which allow for peaceable assembly and public redress of grievances against our government or elected officials within it:

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 – Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines “restricted buildings or grounds” as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

Bill sponsor Tom Rooney (R-FL) claimed in a tweet responding to grievances on the internet, that “HR 347 does not effect your right to protest in any way whatsoever. It deals with fence jumpers, not protestors.”

As it turns out, the two page bill deals not just with ‘fence jumpers,’ but also lays the groundwork for all protests, gatherings and politic dissent in any facility or grounds in the United States of America that has been identified as a place of ‘national significance’ or where the Secret Service is charged with the protection of an individual – ANY individual, whether it’s the President, a congressional member or anyone else of national interest.

This is serious business, and you can be assured that, while Tom Rooney may have meant for the bill to stop fence jumpers, it can and will be used for far more than that:

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidentally disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection…

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — whether it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense…

Source: RT

For those who will undoubtedly be charged under the new legislation, the penalties will be severe.

If you are found to possess a weapon deemed as dangerous (not necessarily a gun) when you knowingly enter an event of national significance you can be imprisoned for up to ten years.

If you are a peaceful, unarmed protester and you disrupt an event you’ll be treated with a bit more mercy by our benevolent leaders and be given up to one (1) year in prison.

With what we’ve seen over the last few year in Greece, greater Europe, Syria, and even the United States, the legislation makes complete sense from a government standpoint. What better way to keep dissenters and protesters quiet than to imprison them for months or years? It will take only a few public examples the next time a Tea Party or Occupy style protest take place and millions of Americans will understand that staying home and staying silent is their new Patriotic duty.

And, if it so happens that protests turn to violent rioting and civil unrest, the government will have the pretext to arrest, detain and imprison anyone and everyone in those ‘restricted areas of national significance.’

Housing these criminals should not be a problem, as our government, the Pentagon and DHS have been planning for just this scenario for quite some time, going so far as to build largescale detention facilities where those identified as subversive to our government can be re-educated.

Source

Torture Architect Argues For Indefinite Detention of Americans

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, February 29, 2012

ACLU: “Nothing short of chilling”

In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive which forbids controversial provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act from being used against lawful residents, a former architect of the infamous Bush torture program today testified in favor of indefinite detention for US citizens.

Following the release of a White House “fact sheet” which announced that “Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States,” Steven G. Bradbury, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the United States Department of Justice under the Bush administration, testified today that the law should be applied to American citizens in order to deal with “homegrown terrorists”.

In his position as OLC head, Bradbury is widely acknowledged as one of the primary architects of the Bush torture program, having provided legal opinions that justified the kind of abuse that came to light in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal, which included torture by hanging, beating prisoners to death, raping women, and sodomizing detainees with batons and phosphorescent tubes.

Bradbury told a Senate Judiciary Committee that legislation which would limit the arbitrary application of indefinite detention provisions, the Due Process Guarantee Act, was dangerous because it would prevent US citizens labeled “enemy combatants,” from being interrogated by the military.

“If we capture on our soil a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who is such an enemy recruit and has been actively involved in carrying out or otherwise aware of an unfolding plot by a foreign power against the United States, this proposed legislation could seriously impede our ability to gather critical intelligence from that combatant through military questioning,” Bradbury told the committee. “By requiring that criminal charges be brought against the detainee as a  condition of this continued detention, the [Due Process Guarantee Act] would threaten to disrupt the practical opportunity to conduct such intelligence gathering.”

In response, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who voted against the NDAA, requested that Bradbury’s involvement with the Bush torture scandal be included in the record.

“It’s nothing short of chilling that the Senate Judiciary Committee would have as a witness one of the architects of the torture program,” American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel Chris Anders told Raw Story. “This is a person who wrote several memos that provide legal justification for the torture program during the Bush administration, and wrote memos on how to try to circumvent legal protections that Congress had put in place to block the use of torture and abuse of detainees.”

“For Congress to be relying on someone who has shown so little disregard for the law that he would say that it’s legally okay to waterboard people and use other torture tactics against them is remarkable. It’s remarkable and it’s wrong.”

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham supported Bradbury’s position, arguing that “The homeland is part of the battlefield,” and that so-called enemy combatants, even if they are American citizens, should be treated as terrorists.

As we explained in our previous article, although Obama’s PPD on exempting Americans from being subject to indefinite detention represents a worthy victory for civil libertarians, it comes after the administration itself demanded such provisions be applied to US citizens in the first place.

It also provides no guarantee that a future administration, which could be in office in less than a year, will not use the ‘kidnapping provisions’ against US citizens. This is all the more reason to support efforts by states such as Virginia and Utah to repudiate the NDAA altogether.

Source