SHOCK POLICE STATE VIDEO: “You Have No Right To Be In Here! You Have No Right To Be In Here!”

This article comes from SHTFplan.com
Also posted on oathkeepers.org

by Mac Slavo

In America today there are some people who believe themselves to be above the law, and it’s unfortunate that in many cases the very individuals and organizations tasked with ensuring the legitimacy of our justice system are the ones who fail to understand or abide by the law of the land.

In Cotati, California police officers showed up at the doorstep of one family after they were reportedly called because of an alleged domestic violence dispute, much to the surprise of the homeowners. As Cotati PD massed on the couple’s front lawn, the homeowner began documenting the encounter.

Law enforcement officers indicated they would be entering the home because of “domestic violence,” at which point both homeowners responded by advising them that they had merely had an argument and no domestic violence had taken place.

Baffled that the residents of the home refused to exit, one officer asked why they wouldn’t respond to their order.

The homeowner, who had previously cited his fourth Amendment right to be safe and secure on his property unless a warrant had been presented by officials, responds with what undoubtedly left police bewildered.

“Because we don’t live in a police state, sir.

Martial law has not been established in this country. “

What happens next is textbook jackbooted police state behavior, as cops kick in the family’s door unlawfully, without cause, and without a warrant.

Read more.

Statists Use Twisted Logic To Attack The Bill Of Rights

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com
Also posted at oathkeepers.org

In the war for the continued existence of our Nation’s Constitutional principles, I had long wondered whether statists were simply confounded by the Bill of Rights and ignorant of its function or whether they were maliciously inclined, knowing exactly what it means but seeking its destruction anyway. In recent years, I have decided it is a combination of both faults.

Statists are people who view every aspect of society through the lens of government power. If you want to know the primary difference between Constitutionalists and anti-Constitutionalists, you have to understand that some people in this world only want control over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear. Fear of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures. Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.

This fear makes statists easy to manipulate by the establishment and easy to use as a tool for the expansion of government dominance. Because statists are so weak-minded and fainthearted, they become very comfortable with the idea of other people making their decisions for them; and they will always attempt to answer every perceived problem with more government control.

When confronted with a proponent of liberty, the statist typically reels in horror. He has so invested himself in bureaucracy that he sees himself as a part of it. To attack the bureaucracy is to attack him. To deny the validity of the bureaucracy is to deny the validity of his existence. His very personality and ego are tied to the machine, so he will spit and rage against anyone who refuses to conform. This is why it is not uncommon at all to find a wild collection of logical fallacies within the tirades of the average statist. Statists act as though they are driven by reason; but in reality, they are driven by seething bias.

A perfect example of this insanity is the article “There Are No Absolute Rights,” published by The Daily Beast.

Let’s first be clear about the kind of rag we are dealing with. The Daily Beast was launched by Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker who was also a British citizen until 2005. I would say she’s a kind of female Piers Morgan. For anyone who might take that as a compliment, trust me; it isn’t. Brown and Morgan are European collectivists who immigrated to America just to tell us how our Constitutionally conservative heritage of independence is outdated; meanwhile, the EU is in the shambles of failed socialism. We used to drive such people into the ocean, and now they breathe our oxygen while telling us what is politically “fashionable.”

In 2010, The Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, a magazine notorious for its statist crush on the Federal government (and now out of print). To say that The Daily Beast is a socialist platform and a mouthpiece for the Administration of President Barack Obama is an understatement, but I would point out that the website also tends to agree with politicians and judges on the right that also promote a “living document” interpretation of the Constitution. Whether right or left, if you believe that the Bill of Rights is up for constant interpretation and revision or outright destruction, then you are the bee’s knees in the eyes of The Beast.

The article focuses on gun rights and how silly conservatives foolishly cling to the idea that some lines in the sand should never be crossed in terms of personal freedom. In a rather mediocre and rambling analysis, The Beast uses two primary arguments to qualify this stance, essentially asserting that:

      1) Compromises have already been made to the Bill of Rights; therefore, nothing is sacred.

      2) Even some Republicans agree with compromises to the Bill of Rights when it comes to other Amendments, so why are we being so childish about “reinterpreting” the 2^nd Amendment?

First, the revisionist methodology of the Bill of Rights consistently ignores the history of its writing. The colonists and Founding Fathers of our Nation, having successfully triumphed in a bloody revolution against what many then considered the most advanced elitist military empire on Earth, had absolutely no trust whatsoever in the concept of centralized government. Many of the colonials were anti-Federalists who believed that an overly powerful central government was a threat to future liberty. They felt that an immovable and unchangeable legal shield had to be created in order to ensure that a tyrannical system never prevailed again.

Thomas Jefferson said:

“[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

This statement includes modern governments as well. Technological advancement does not change the rules surrounding timeless inherent moral principles, as much as statists would like to argue otherwise.

The colonials demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as a prerequisite for the establishment of the Federal government. This means that the Federal government owes its entire existence to a very strict agreement made on the Bill of Rights. By extension, if the Bill of Rights is politically diluted or denied, then the legitimacy of the Federal government must also be denied, for it has violated the very charter that gave it life.

The writer of the article, Michael Tomasky, lists numerous transgressions against our Constitutional protections; but he does not do so in the spirit of activism. Rather, he lists them as examples of how “compromise” on our freedoms is necessary (or somehow inevitable) in the name of the collective good. He claims Republicans are perfectly willing to sacrifice certain liberties, like freedom of speech, privacy or even Miranda rights, in the name of political expediency.

I wholeheartedly agree that our civil liberties have been whittled away by the establishment. I also agree that many so-called Republicans have betrayed the founding values of our culture and even voted to diminish or destroy the 2^nd Amendment. But let’s think hard about the faulty logic behind Tomansky’s position. Do two wrongs or hundreds of wrongs really make a right? Tomansky is saying that because we have failed as a society to fully protect our freedoms and because our government has been successful in criminally neglecting them, we should simply give in and relinquish all freedom.

He would respond to this accusation by claiming that he is not calling for the relinquishment of all liberties, only the liberties he thinks are dangerous to society. The problem is, that is not how the Constitution was designed. Amendments can be made, yes. But amendments contrary to the Bill of Rights are not Constitutional as per the original agreement made after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period. No Federal law, no State law and no Amendment can be enforced that violates those protections. The Bill of Rights was not created as a rule book for what the people can do; it was created as a rule book for what government cannot do. Once you remove hard fast restrictions like the Bill of Rights from the picture, you give the government license to make its own rules. That is how tyranny is born.

As far as Republican attacks on the Constitution are concerned, Tomasky has obviously never heard of the false left/right paradigm. He finds solace in the totalitarian actions of neocons because neocons are not conservative; they are statists, just like him. Ultimately, there is no right or left. Only freedom and decentralization, or slavery and collectivism. There are those who revel in control, and those who rebel against control. The rest of the debate is nonsense and distraction.

Tomsky opines: “Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment–and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans.”

Actually, any true conservative would be standing right beside those liberals, as many of us in the liberty movement have done in the past in activism against the transgressions of fake conservatives like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, with his dismal anti-Constitution voting record. Frankly, who cares what “average Americans” think about our battle for what is right? Does Tomasky base all of his personal convictions on what happens to be popular at the moment? I think so.

What statists also don’t seem to comprehend is that there is a factor in the fight over Constitutional law that goes far beyond the Constitution itself.

The Constitution, as a document, is not what we as Americans and human beings obtain our rights from. The Constitution is only a written representation of the inborn freedoms derived from natural law and inherent conscience. We are born with a sense of liberty and that includes a right to self-defense from any enemy, foreign or domestic. No amount of political gaming, twisted rationalizations or intellectual idiocy is ever going to change these pre-existing rights.

Tomasky insists that: “[T]he idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.”

He uses the tired argument that some restrictions on personal liberty, including restrictions on gun rights, are “reasonable” given the circumstances of the times. And, it only follows that he and other statists should be the ones to decide what is reasonable.

I disagree, along with millions of other Americans; and believe me, this is a serious problem for statists. If Tomasky and The Daily Beast want to impose their collective worldview on the rest of us and dismantle our individual freedoms guaranteed in natural law and the Bill of Rights, then I’m afraid they’ll have to fight us for them. In the end, legal precedence is irrelevant. Political precedence is irrelevant. Political party is irrelevant. Historical precedence is irrelevant. The theater of words is irrelevant. Statists need to understand that there is no alternative. There is no “silver bullet” argument that will make us forget what is fundamentally true. There is no juxtaposition of logic that will muddle our resolve or confuse our principles. Some rights are indeed absolute; and we will not yield them, ever. The statist “reality” is a far cry from what actually is; and soon, I’m afraid, they will learn this lesson the hard way.

Oath Keepers of Orange County Presents: A Night of Resistance – Featuring: Stewart Rhodes

Click Image to Enlarge

Click here for Black & White version for printing. – PDF Download

Please visit the links of our Sponsors:

Oath Keepers – www.oathkeepers.org

Orange County Archery

The Old World – www.oldworld.ws

Civilian Arms Training Source – www.civilianarmstraining.com

Combative Fighting Arts – www.combativefightingarts.com

Stewart Rhodes Speaking in Grass Valley, California – February 19, 2013

 

 

‎Stewart Rhodes, Chuck Shea, and John Oetken will be gathering with the Oath Keepers in the area to formalize a Northern California Chapter. Please get the word out and spread this information and share the picture.

We will also be fundraising for the Oath Keeper Billboards to put up near Beale AFB California.

https://www.facebook.com/events/417066241709857/

Port Authority cop accused of owning ‘Newtown’-style assault rifle

by Melissa Klein * December 30 2012

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gun_rap_on_pa_cop_Dv0r84uKgQIFATgmh2OAcI

-

This gun lover carries a badge.

Port Authority cop Jeffrey Haner was busted on possession of two illegal assault weapons, including the same type of Bushmaster rifle used in the Newtown massacre, authorities said.

Ramsey, NJ, police said they took a total of 10 weapons from Haner after his wife asked for a temporary restraining order.

The 41-year-old cop, who works at the George Washington Bridge and made $175,000 last year, also had eight legal guns, including two handguns, Ramsey police said.

But Haner’s .223-caliber Bushmaster and Chinese-made Norinco rifle were fitted with accessories including flash suppressors that made them illegal assault weapons under New Jersey law, police said.

He was charged on Dec. 21 with two counts of possessing an assault weapon without a permit, police said. The maximum penalty for each charge is five years in prison.

Haner was also charged with one count of possessing high-capacity magazines, which carries a maximum penalty of up to 18 months in prison.

A source familiar with Haner’s case said he bought the guns more than 15 years ago and they were stored in a locked case.

Haner did not return a call seeking comment.

Bobby Egbert, a spokesman for the Port Authority PBA, said Haner had an “impeccable 19-plus-years career” with the department.

“It’s our hope that he is treated fairly,” he said.

(snip) Please read entire article at source:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gun_rap_on_pa_cop_Dv0r84uKgQIFATgmh2OAcI

Oath Keepers Assisting in Legal Defense of Marine Sgt. Gary Stein, Founder of Armed Forces Tea Party

Oath Keepers is assisting in the legal defense of Marine Corps Sgt. Gary Stein, who is facing military administrative proceedings to separate him from the Marine Corps, with his commanding officer requesting that he be separated with an other than honorable conditions discharge.  This is all because Sgt. Stein dared to found the Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page, and because, on a separate Facebook page run by someone else, in a discussion thread conversation with other Marines, Sgt. Stein strongly expressed his opposition to some of Obama’s unconstitutional policies and expressed his intent to refuse unlawful orders.

You can learn more background information about this case here.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/03/24/the-facebook-firestorm-of-sgt-stein-usmc/

We consider this attempt to kick a nine-year career Marine Sergeant out of the Marine Corps, for the “crime” of using modern social media tools to have a conversation with other Marines about serious concerns that impact his oath, and for the “offense” of daring to participate in the Tea Party movement, to be a travesty.

I (Stewart Rhodes) and Oath Keepers General Counsel David Rivers (a Marine Vietnam combat veteran), have volunteered our services as attorneys to assist Sgt. Stein pro bono and we have helped to assemble an excellent civilian legal defense team to work with and assist Sgt. Stein’s military JAG lawyer team.

Sgt. Stein was given written notification of administrative separation proceedings last Wednesday, March 21, 2012, but because all of the JAG officers were at a previously scheduled conference, he was not able to attain JAG counsel till last Friday, March 23.  With the separation hearing scheduled for this coming Saturday, March 31, 2012, that hardly provides time to prepare a defense, but unless we can secure a continuance, we will have to soldier on and be as ready as we can by this Saturday.  I am planning on being there for the hearing.

Once Sgt. Stein made it clear he wanted civilian counsel to work with his JAG attorneys, we arranged a conference call with the JAG attorneys last Friday.  I invited the well regarded constitutional attorneys William J. Olson and Herb Titus to join that call.  Olson and Titus were part of the defense team for Specialist Michael New in his historic stand against serving under U.N. command, and they are top notch lawyers. On that conference call it became readily apparent that Sgt. Stein has an excellent military JAG defense team.  They are sharp, competent, and very dedicated to defending Sgt. Stein, as part of keeping their oaths to defend the Constitution.   They are also very willing to work with civilian counsel as part of a combined legal team.  Sgt. Stein is in good hands.

Yesterday, March 26, Mr. Olson brought in Houston, Texas attorney Mark Brewer, who is a former JAG officer.   As a former JAG, Mr. Brewer will be the lead civilian defense counsel with the rest of us assisting, with our civilian legal team working closely with the Marine Corps JAG defense team.  Also on the civilian team will be attorney Gary Kreep, Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation.

Mr. Kreep will help set up a tax deductible legal defense fund for Sgt. Stein’s legal defense.  Once that legal defense fund is established, we will email the details on how you can contribute directly to his legal defense, if you want to.

As noted above, whatever work I or Oath Keepers General Counsel David Rivers may do on this case will be pro bono (no charge) but Sgt. Stein will have to pay for Mr. Brewer’s services (at a reduced rate) and likewise may have to pay for other civilian counsel and of-counsel attorneys on this case, as well as court costs and travel expenses, so he will certainly need donations to help him cover those fees and costs.  So, once Sgt. Stein and Mr. Kreep have the tax deductible legal defense fund established, I would encourage you all to donate to it if you can.   Just to be clear, that fund will not be run by Oath Keepers, so if you want to donate to Sgt. Stein’s legal defense in particular, please wait until he establishes his own defense fund.   Our legal defense fund for Oath Keepers will remain separate.

I will send another update soon, and we will be posting additional articles and documents on the Oath Keepers website, along with our own original research and writing, over the coming days and weeks.   I do encourage you to spread the word about this case, and to put public pressure on the Marine Corps to do the right thing by retaining this fine young Marine.   Especially useful would be letters of support from leaders of veterans’ organizations, as well as from individuals.  We will post an example letter for your use, in case you want to send one in, and we will email that example to our list, once it is finished.

You can count on Oath Keepers to do all we can to help Sgt. Stein in his stand for the Constitution.  Doing so is part of keeping our own oaths.  This case is about the rights of free speech, assembly, and association, the right to comment on candidates for office and current issues, about the citizen’s duty of civic involvement, and about the duty of service members to defend the Constitution by refusing unlawful orders that violate the Constitution (which is the reason Oath Keepers exists).  This is not about partisan politics or any one candidate.  The ACLU, to their credit, stood up for Sgt. Stein in the past and is likely to do so now as well.  We certainly hope they do, because this is not a partisan issue.  This is about being Americans and defending our Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, for all Americans, in the military and outside the military, regardless of their political orientation.   It’s not about the left or right, but about our Bill of Rights.

Let’s take a firm stand in defense of this young Marine.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes
Founder and President of Oath Keepers
Army Airborne veteran
Yale Law Graduate, 04

Northern California Sheriffs Leading The Way Back to the Constitution – Full Video

Northern California Sheriffs are leading the way back to the Constitution.  This is the full video of a recent event in Northern California.  Thank you Sheriffs for waking up and fighting for truth, freedom, and liberty.

http://RTR.org | Americans are pushing back all over the country. It’s very clear that a revolution is in full swing. Tea Parties have been organizing to fight the bailouts and taxation. Occupy Movements have be springing up to fight against Wall St corruption at the hands of the Federal Reserve. Americans are pulling their cash out of Big Banks and supporting local Credit unions, as we move into a heated election season where it looks like it’s anyone’s game.

In today’s exclusive special report Gary Franchi is joined by Former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack. They discuss the County Sheriff Project, a movement that will compound the effort to push back against an over reaching Federal Government, a movement that needs your support.

There are a few things you can do to support the County Sheriff Project:

1st. Visit their website at http://CountySheriffProject.org and make a financial contribution

2nd. Simply share this video to your social networks and email lists.http://on.fb.me/sharvid

3rd. Give your local Sheriff a copy of Sheriff Mack’s book “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope” available at http://SheriffMack.com, and tell them about the County Sheriff Project.

Website: http://CountySheriffProject.org
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/County-Sheriff-Project
Share it: http://on.fb.me/sharvid

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

Kelly Thomas / Fullerton PD Case: Recap & Invalid / Fraudulent Oaths of Office of Police Chief & Officers and City Officials

Fullerton CA Police Beat and Kill Homeless Man, Kelly Thomas

Recap: On July 5th, 2011 Kelly Thomas was brutally beaten into a coma by six Fullerton Police officers.

He never regained consciousness. After several days in intensive care, his family was forced to make the awful decision to remove him from life support and he passed away.

Reason.TV documentary short:
‪Cops Vs. Cameras: The Killing of Kelly Thomas & The Power of New Media‬

Oath Keepers of Orange County, CA, Oath Keepers and people from all over Southern California, were present to show support for the Thomas family and to stand up peacefully to protest against the unconstitutional behavior of the 6 Fullerton police officers who beat Kelly Thomas to death:

9-21-2011:

From previous posts on ocoathkeepers.wordpress.com: Update on the Kelly Thomas Beating and Death

From this PDF file: Kelly-Thomas-Charges.PDF

SANTA ANA – Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) Tony Rackauckas filed charges this morning against two police officers from the Fullerton Police Department (FPD) for their criminal participation in the beating-death of a homeless man, 37-year-old Kelly Thomas.

Officer Manuel Ramos is charged with one felony count of second degree murder and one felony count of involuntary manslaughter. He faces a maximum sentence of 15 years to life in state prison if convicted. Corporal Jay Cicinelli is chargedwith one felony count of involuntary manslaughter and one felony count of the use of excessive force. He faces a maximum
sentence of four years in state prison if convicted.

The defendants surrendered this morning to OCDA Investigators and will be arraigned today, Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. in Department C-55, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana. Per the statutory bail amounts, the People will request $1 million bail for Ramos and $25,000 bail for Cicinelli.

Due to a lack of evidence, as described below, criminal charges were not filed against the remaining four officers involved in the incident including Officer Joseph Wolfe, Officer Kenton Hampton, Sergeant Kevin Craig, and Corporal James Blatney.

The decision regarding the filing of criminal charges was made by District Attorney Rackauckas following an extensive investigation and thorough legal review by the OCDA. The District Attorney will be announcing the trial team at a later date.

….Please read the rest of the PDF file from the above link which includes the DA’s remarks.

Invalid and Fraudulent Oaths of Office of Police Chief & Officers and City Officials

An Interview on Republic Broadcasting Network:

Common Sense Revisited Archive Interview by Todd McGreevy with guest Corey Eib on Third Rail Blog

Corey explains how the infamous “Fullerton Six” police officers embroiled in the murder of a homeless man have invalid and fraudulent oaths of office and brings us up to speed on their status. His research is at the link directly below:
http://www.easu.org/FullertonPD.html

Legal Document for Obtaining Copies of any Oath of Office in California:

White Paper on California Public Records Act - PDF Download (this is also located on our Documents page)

Rawesome Foods Raid – Venice, California

The Fight For the Right To Eat What You Want

In the Summer of 2010 armed government agents raided Rawesome Foods, a Venice, California health food co-op. What were the agents after? Unpasteurized milk, it turns out.

Raw milk raids are happening all over the United States. The Food and Drug Administration warns that raw milk consumption can cause health problems, but a growing community of raw foods enthusiasts are ignoring government recommendations and claiming that they are getting tastier, more nutritious food by going raw.

Reason.tv visited Rawesome to examine the circumstances of the raid and discovered that this particular raw foods case stretches across county lines and involves at least five separate government agencies, despite the fact that not a single member of Rawesome has complained or been harmed by the raw foods. In fact, members have to sign a contract stating that they understand and accept the risks of consuming raw foods before they are allowed to step inside.

Rawesome Foods Raided… Again!

On August 3, 2011, Rawesome experienced another multi-agency raid, but this one resulted in the arrest of the establishment’s owner James Stewart.

Stewart, and Sharon Palmer, the farmer who supplies him with raw goat milk, are being held on bails in excess of $100,000 and are each charged with four felonies and several more misdemeanors. Some examples of the charges are “processing unpasteurized milk,” “improper labeling of food,” and “improper egg temperatures.”

The government has kept pursuing Stewart and his club for years, despite a lack of any reports of illness or injury from consumption of his foods. Rawesome members argue that they are part of a private club, not subject to government regulation, and that they are being persecuted for their alternative lifestyles.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office would not comment for this video.

Today’s RAID on RAWESOME FOODS : Video Montage

Police Begin “Guns Drawn” Raids on Organic Food Stores in California

An Interview on Republic Broadcasting Network:

Common Sense Revisited Archive Interview by Todd McGreevy with guest Corey Eib on Third Rail Blog

Corey explains how the California Health Department “official” who issued the search and arrest warrant on Rawesome Foods owner James Stewart, Michele Lecavalier, does not have an oath of office on file, as required by California state law. His research and documentation is here below:
http://www.easu.org/rawesome.html

The Rawesome Foods raid in 2010 made headlines all over the internet and mainstream news alike.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/rawsome-raid-_n_917540.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/033224_Rawesome_Foods_search_warrant.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/04/the-rawesome-raid-and-ra…

Oath Keepers Launches National Effort to Recall and/or Remove Members of Congress Who Voted for NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, U.S. Congress!

“There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”- Marine General Smedley Butler.

Oath Keepers has launched a national effort to recall (or remove by any other lawful means) all of the oath breaking members of Congress, in both the House and Senate, who voted for the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (NDAA), which contains provisions that authorize indefinite military detention and trial by military commission of “any person” – including U.S. citizens and lawful residents – upon the mere say-so of the President or one of his subordinates in the Executive Branch, such as within the Department of Defense or CIA.

Number three on the Oath Keepers list of Orders We Will Not Obey states:

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

That is near the top of our list for very good reason – this claimed power will kill our Bill of Rights unless it is stopped.  To be blunt, we consider the NDAA of 2012 to be a declaration of war on the American people, and an act of treason.   But even if you disagree with that view, and merely consider those who voted for it to be oath breakers, please work hard to remove them all from office.  Oath Keepers members across the nation will lead or assist efforts in their states to remove any member of Congress, regardless of party, who voted for this monstrosity.

We encourage all Americans of whatever political party to set aside their differences and come together in defense of our Bill of Rights by rooting out this den of vipers in Washington D.C. who are either knowingly killing our Bill of Rights, were too concerned with their careers to take a principled stand by voting against the NDAA, or are useful idiots who don’t understand what they swore an oath to defend.  Whatever their excuse, they have violated their oaths to defend the Constitution and must be sent packing.  This is not about politics.  This is about defending the Constitution.  As Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes put it:

These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution.  It’s not about the left or right, it’s about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America.  It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization.

As two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”   Time to fight.

This is a bi-partisan assault on the Bill of Rights that will require a bi-partisan defense.  We the People must adopt a scorched-earth policy against all who voted for the NDAA of 2012, regardless of party, using any and all lawful means available to remove them from office.  If you can remove them by means of recall, then do so.  If that option is not available in your state, consider working to make it an option in your state.  If attempts to recall are stopped by the courts, then root the oath breakers out in the next primary of whatever party they are in, making this issue the litmus test and supporting a challenger who will pledge to repeal this dangerous law.   Make this desecration of our Bill of Rights campaign issue number one.

And if you don’t manage to root them out in the primary, then defeat them in the general election, again supporting a challenger who pledges to repeal the detention provisions of the NDAA.   Use whatever lawful means or combination of strategies available to get the job done.   And even when any particular method “fails,” it still succeeds in keeping the focus on this act of betrayal, and it serves to educate the American people, waking them up to the ongoing bipartisan assault on our Bill of Rights.  Even if we lose a battle we can still win the war.

We must keep this issue in the public eye, and keep the pressure on.  Just as Jefferson and Madison were successful in rallying opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which clearly violated the Constitution, and used that opposition to sweep the Federalists from Congress in what was known as “the revolution of 1800,” we must rally opposition to this clearly unconstitutional act and use it to sweep all of the Bill of Rights killing career politicians, of both major parties, out of Congress.   Clean them all out!

To kick off this national campaign, Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes, along with Montana artist William Crain, will be personally spear-heading a recall effort in Montana, aimed at all three of Montana’s federal delegation -  Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus, and Representative Denny Rehberg – since they all voted for the NDAA.  Stewart said:

Here in Montana, while we will go after all three violators of the Bill of Rights, I will place special emphasis and “focus of effort” on Denny Rehberg, since he is so fond of wrapping himself in the flag and claiming to be defending the Constitution while his votes do the exact opposite.   In that sense, Rehberg is much like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two Republicans who, right along with Carl Levin and Joseph Lieberman, are leading a sustained and relentless assault on our Bill of Rights,  transforming America in to the Fourth Reich in the name of “national security” while claiming to be defenders of the Constitution.   There is surely a special place in Hell reserved for such hypocrites.  The blood of America’s war dead cries out for the Bill of Rights to be defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we will answer that call.

My only question for Denny Rehberg is if he is a knowing traitor to our Constitution, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham (both of whom served in the military and clearly know exactly what they are doing), or is Rehberg just a useful idiot?   Regardless of the answer, he is unfit to be dog-catcher and I will make it my mission in Montana to ensure that this oath breaker never serves in public office again.

And as for Senator Jon Tester, Stewart Rhodes had this to say, directly addressed to the Senator:

Senator Tester, my friend Jim Manley introduced us back in 2006, at Doug Wold’s place in Polson during the Montana Trial Lawyers Convention, when you were running for U.S. Senate against Conrad Burns.  Jim assured me that you would fight against the neocons who were assaulting the Bill of Rights, and when I met you, I looked you in the eye and asked if you would fight to stop them, and you answered “yes.”  And so I was very happy to see you defeat the oath breaking Conrad Burns.  I am a one issue voter –and that issue is the Bill of Rights.  Conrad Burns, who voted for the PATRIOT Act, was a Bill of Rights wrecking machine who had to go.  Good riddance! But now you have gone down the same path by voting for the NDAA of 2012, betraying the trust that Montanans placed in you to stand up for the Bill of Rights.  You blew it when it counted most.  You violated your oath.  I sincerely hope Montana Democrats select someone better in the upcoming Montana Democratic primary.   We cannot afford more of the same.

No More Pernicious Doctrine

The NDAA of 2012 is the single most dangerous and destructive anti-constitutional piece of legislation to ever pass through Congress since it strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and especially at our Bill of Rights, stripping away not just the ancient right of habeas corpus, but also directly violating the right to jury trial guaranteed by both Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and by the Sixth Amendment, and also directly violating the Treason Clause of Article III, Section 3, which defines the crime of treason, stating:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Thus Article III clearly establishes what must be done with any Americans accused of making war against the United States or aiding the enemy – those Americans must be tried in an Article III civilian court, before a jury of their peers, and there must be two witnesses to the overt act or a confession in open court (extra evidentiary hurdles) before their lives or liberty can be taken from them, as Justices Scalia and Stevens aptly pointed out in their dissent in Hamdi.

Despite that clear constitutional trial remedy for the only crime defined by the Constitution itself, with its extra due process protections for accused Americans, the NDAA purports to instead subject Americans to indefinite military detention without trial for the duration of the war on terrorism – which may last forever – or trial before a military commission, rather than before a civilian jury as Article III plainly demands whenever any American is accused of being a traitor.

The NDAA detention provisions also directly violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.  There is no more unreasonable seizure of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident than having them black-bagged and “disappeared” by the U.S. military on the mere say so of the President or some subordinate within the Executive Branch, without a showing of probable cause in support of arrest before a neutral judge, and without an indictment by a Grand Jury as is required by the Fifth Amendment.   And as already noted, the right to jury trial clearly mandated by Article III and by the Sixth Amendment is grossly violated.   Such arbitrary indefinite military detention and military trial of civilians are the hallmarks of repressive dictatorships throughout history.

This act by Congress is but the latest in a long train of abuses begun by the Bush Administration and carried forward by the Obama Administration.  The Bush Administration began the assault on the Bill of Rights by using arbitrary military detention on two American citizens, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, with Padilla “captured” at the Chicago O’Hare International Airport and detained at a military brig in the United States for three and a half years.  The Bush Administration based those detentions on a flawed World War II decision, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), wherein the same Supreme Court that gave us the horrendous Korematsu decision ruled, for the first time in U.S. history, upheld as “constitutional” the military detention and trial of American citizens as “unlawful combatants” under the laws of war rather than a trial for treason, in a civilian court, before a jury of their peers, as our Constitution demands whenever any American is accused of making war against the United States or aiding the enemy in wartime.

Before that one incident in World War II, the only other time a President had applied the laws of war to the American people was when Lincoln detained approximately 15,000 Northern civilians and tried nearly 5,000 of them by military tribunal.  That detention and trial under the laws of war was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866).   Prior to that unconstitutional practice by Lincoln, all who were accused of making war against their own nation, or aiding the enemy, recieved a trial for treason, before a jury of their peers.  And after Lincoln, such an attempt to use the laws of war on the American people was not attempted again until FDR did it during World War II.    Nor was it attempted again until after 9/11.

It was then, in 2001,  that the Bush Administration used that nearly forgotten World War II Quirin decision to support a claim of power to treat America like a battlefield and to apply the laws of war to the American people, treating U.S. citizens and lawful residents the same as the people of conquered enemy nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where anyone merely accused of being an “enemy” can be detained indefinitely by the military, or tried by tribunal and executed.  And the modern federal courts have given their rubber stamp of approval, most significantly in the Hamdi and Padilla cases.  And so, the flawed Quirin decision that laid around like a loaded gun for sixty years has been picked up, dusted off, and used to bring the laws of war home to America, shoving aside our Bill of Rights, and transforming America, step-by-step, into the equivalent of occupied Iraq.  Again, read Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi  an in-depth analysis of the history and cases, see the paper on this topic that Stewart Rhodes wrote in 2004 while a student at Yale Law School, which won Yale’s Judge William E. Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights.  Stewart also wrote a shorter article in 2005 for The Warrior, the journal of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College, which summarized his findings.   And you can listen to a recent radio interview Stewart did on this topic, where he lays out exactly how dangerous this law will be, and provides a summary of the relevant caselaw.   As Stewart stated in his November, 2010 interview with The Daily Bell:

The modern resurrection of these dangerous doctrines, which apply the international laws of war to the American people and treat them the same as foreign enemies on foreign battlefields, is one of the principle reasons I founded Oath Keepers.

In Stewart’s above noted writings of 2004 and 2005, he warned that the logical conclusion of this application of the laws of war to the American people is not just detention and trial, but also simply killing Americans on sight, since that is what can be done to a military enemy in wartime.  And that is exactly what has begun to happen.

Obama, instead of rolling back such absurd claims of Executive Power like he promised during his campaign, has doubled down and has taken this claimed power to use the laws of war on Americans to its absurd logical conclusion by asserting that he has the power to order the killing of any American he determines is an “unlawful combatant” during the war on terrorism – just as he does with foreign enemies on a foreign battlefield.   And Obama has done just that.  He has had U.S. citizens killed.   When the “leader” of a nation can put any citizen’s name on his secret list of people to be snuffed out -  a list he concocts based on “secret evidence” he refuses to show anyone – and, without a trial, without a chance for the victims to defend themselves, and without even knowing they are on the list, those kill-on-sight orders are carried out, you are living in a dictatorship.  The U.S. routinely condemns such extra-judicial killings in other countries as gross human rights violations, and rightly so.  But now our own government claims the power to do that to any of us and has begun to do it.

And now Congress has given its overwhelming vote of approval for this insane application of the laws of war to Americans.   By passing the NDAA with these detention and trial provisions, Congress is piling on, and giving its overt support to that claimed power. What was once a power implied, ‘interpreted” and inferred by two administrations, and in various court cases has now been given overt approval by Congress, to “make it legal” while defenders of the act do the long-winded equivalent of “move along citizens, nothing to see here.” As Law Professor Jonathan Turley put it:

At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

I am not sure which is worse: the loss of core civil liberties or the almost mocking post hoc rationalization for abandoning principle.The Congress and the President have now completed a law that would have horrified the Framers. Indefinite detention of citizens is something that the Framers were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights.

See also the analysis at the Law Prof Blog and by Glenn Greenwald, here.

As Rep. Tom McClintock, speaking in opposition, aptly put it:

I rise in opposition to Section 1021 of the underlying Conference Report (H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act).
This section specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with “substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any ‘associated forces’” – whatever that means.

Would “substantial support” of an “associated force,” mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda?  We don’t know.  The question is, “do we really want to find out?”

We’re told not to worry – that the bill explicitly states that nothing in it shall alter existing law.

But wait.

There is no existing law that gives the President the power to ignore the Bill of Rights and detain Americans without due process.  There is only an assertion by the last two presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill-defined war on terrorism.  But it is a power not granted by any act of Congress.  At least, not until now.

What this bill says is, “What Presidents have only asserted, Congress now affirms in statute.”

We’re told that this merely pushes the question to the Supreme Court to decide if indefinite detainment is compatible with any remaining vestige of the Bill of Rights.

That’s a good point, IF the Court were the sole guardian of the Constitution.  But it is not.  If it were, there would be no reason to require every member of Congress to swear to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution.

We are also its guardians.

And today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty.

And Senator Bernie Sanders declared:

”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And Senator Rand Paul warned:

If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.

Across the political spectrum, Americans are waking up to what has been done, and are  indeed standing up to defend our Bill of Rights against all comers.   The apolitical nature of this alarm and resistance is well demonstrated by the fact that two retired four-star Marine Corps generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, wrote a scathing condemnation in the N.Y Times, demanding that Obama veto the bill.  Sadly, Obama himself is an oath breaker.

While Congress does have both the power and the duty to remove oath breakers and traitors from office, with a House vote of 283 to 136 (with 14 members not voting), and a vote in the Senate of 87-13 in favor of this abomination, impeachment is a sick joke since they will not impeach themselves.  Impeachment only works when a majority in Congress take their oaths seriously, have the requisite knowledge of our Constitution to know when it is being violated, an the courage and integrity to defend it.  We are now faced with a super-majority in Congress who have amply demonstrated that they have either utter contempt for our Bill of Rights, are so ignorant that they don’t know when they are destroying the heart and soul of our Constitution, or are so cowardly that they will not take a principled stand.  In any case, they will not correct themselves, by resigning or impeaching each other, and it thus falls to We the People to step in and correct them, by removing the oath breakers from office before they complete the destruction of our Bill of Rights.

One thing that must be made clear to the oath breakers in Congress who voted for the NDAA is that there would be no Constitution if not for the promise of a Bill of Rights.   So, by destroying our Bill of Rights, they are destroying the Constitution that created the three branches of the federal government.   By destroying the Constitution, Congress is destroying itself.

We must, and we will, exhaust all peaceful means we have left of defending our Bill of Rights.   But make no mistake, we, the American people, and especially we, the American veterans, will defend our Bill of Rights at all hazards, up to and including by giving our lives in its defense.   We are duty bound to do no less.  We will not leave our children to a world without the Bill of Rights.   Our fathers and grandfathers fought, bled, and died to defeat fascism over there. We will not abide it here at home.   They honored their oaths, and we shall do the same.  And we will set aside all other differences to take this stand.  For without the Bill of Rights, America ceases to exist.

For the Republic,

Oath Keepers