Archive for category NDAA

Hypocrisy And John McCain

McCain

by Shorty Dawkins
Posted on oathkeepers.org

John McCain recently wrote a piece for the Russian newspaper Pravda.ru, which was, ostensibly, in response to a piece written by Vladimir Putin in the New York Times. Please, spend the time to read them both. Whereas President Putin’s piece was a rational, statesman-like argument for his position, Senator McCain’s piece was merely a personal attack on Putin. It was personal and hypocritical to the highest degree. It was truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

John McCain says in his opinion piece: “I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government. I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few. You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just. I make that claim because I believe the Russian people, no less than Americans, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Really, John? You believe in inalienable rights? If so, why have you voted to legislate the Rights delineated in the Bill of Rights? You voted for the NDAA bill that deprives us of due process, all at the whim of the President. Yet you say you believe in inalienable rights. You have supported the NSA spying on our communications. Inalienable rights, John?

You say you believe you should live by the dictates of your conscience, not the government, yet you call Edward Snowden a traitor for doing just that.

You say: “I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few.” John, didn’t you vote for the Bank bailouts, that benefited the bankers and left the bill for the American public to pay? And don’t you support the concept of the Petrodollar, a fiat money supporting scheme engineered by Henry Kissinger during the Nixon Administration? And isn’t the petrodollar the reason for the invasions of Iraq, Libya, and, if you have your way, Syria? Have you voted to eliminate the Federal Reserve System, the foundation of the fiat money scheme? No? Yet you claim to believe in an economy built to last. John, you are being hypocritical. All fiat money schemes eventually collapse. They cannot last. They are houses of cards, or, more correctly, Ponzi schemes.

What of the Rule of Law you claim to believe in, that should be equally applied to all? Have any bankers, from the too big to fail banks, that have admittedly laundered hundreds of billions of dollars in drug money been brought to justice? No, they are fined a pittance of their profits. No jail time for your banker friends. Didn’t you vote for the bailouts of the banks, AIG , General Motors and Chrysler?

You say in your opinion piece: “A Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Putin and his associates do not believe in these values. They don’t respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even assassinate journalists who try to expose their corruption.”

Isn’t this a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black? It is certainly true of Russia, though slightly less so than in the days of the Soviet Union, but your own response to Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and the Wikileaks disclosures prove you are on the side of corruption, John. When you support the surveillance of our communications, are you respecting us, John? You complain of the Russian controlled media but our mainstream media is tightly controlled by a few oligarchs, similar to Russia.

When I read your opinion piece, Senator McCain, I am reminded of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, his Vice-President. Richard Nixon, of course, is famous for declaring “I am not a crook” shortly before he resigned the Presidency in disgrace. Spiro Agnew, who pontificated often about “Law and Order” resigned from the Vice-Presidency amid allegations of bribery and extortion, and admitted to tax evasion. You pontificate about inalienable rights, the rule of law, and a sound economy, yet you would deny all these to the American public. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order, and an enemy of the Constitution. It is time for you to resign.

, ,

1 Comment

Montana Anti-NDAA Bill Moves to Senate With 98-0 Vote

Montana State House

This article appears at Activist Post. It is great to see such an overwhelming vote. Kudos to the Montana House. We’ll wait to see what the Senate does. -Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

-The Montana House Judiciary Committee voted 20-0 last week to support HB522 (link to full text below) that would make it illegal to cooperate in any way with indefinite detention sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA.

The rising tide of states proposing legislation to strengthen their right to self-direction continues with Indiana, Colorado and Arizona all advancing bills to ensure that indefinite detention of American citizens will not take place in their states.

The Tenth Amendment Center is reporting that an earlier vote in Montana of 97-1 has now been updated to 98-0, sending a clear message to the state Senate that there is overwhelming support across the political spectrum for this bill.

See more HERE.

Click here to view this article at oathkeepers.org

Leave a comment

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

Grass Valley Rally

 

 

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/

3 Comments

Amendment To Protect Americans From Indefinite Detention Passes Senate

Senator Rand Paul

Last night, the U.S. Senate voted on Amendment No. 3018 to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, which protects the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to indefinite detention and the right to a trial by jury.

The amendment passed, 67-29. However, many Senators, including McCain and Graham, voted for the amendment because they made the argument that the amendment authorizes indefinite detention.

Moments before the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to again voice his support for the amendment and inspire his colleagues to do the same. Below is video and transcript of his floor speech.

-

-

Here is an email sent to Senator Rand Paul’s email “list”:

Submitted by JO for Ron Paul on Fri, 11/30/2012 — 07:42. Permalink

The right to a trial by jury is one of the very foundations of our Republic.

Thanks to the petitions and phone calls from concerned Americans like you, the Amendment stripping the indefinite detention language out of the NDAA just passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 67-29.

But this fight isn’t over yet.

Since the Senate amended the NDAA, it now has to go back to the House for approval.

So you and I must remain prepared to pick up this fight in the Senate in the near future.

Once again, thank you for all you do. I’ll be sure and keep you updated on our fight to protect the 6th Amendment rights of all Americans.

In Liberty,
Senator Rand Paul

1 Comment

NDAA 2013: Let’s Identify The Traitors To The U.S. Constitution

ndaa-protest

This article was written by Eric Blair and originally published at Activist Post

By now anyone who pays attention to politics knows that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 contained a provision that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA states that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism or “belligerent acts” against the U.S. can be detained by the military under the so-called Authorization for Use of Military Force, including American citizens.

In other words, the war on terror has been officially declared on U.S. soil and everyone is now considered a potential combatant in this war.

Senator Lindsey Graham pretty much summed it up when he said, “The homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not.”

Even though this clause is a direct violation of citizen’s rights under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, there was scarcely any dissent and hardly a peep from the corporate media when Obama signed it into law under the cover of darkness late on New Year’s Eve 2011.

This year Senator Rand Paul once again blocked the passage of the NDAA for 2013, which the Senate hoped to rush through before the Thanksgiving recess. Using a filibuster, Paul is attempting to force a vote on his amendment to exempt American citizens from the indefinite detention clause.

Rand Paul’s amendment simply reaffirms the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
A citizen of the United States who is captured or arrested in the United States and detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Compare that to the 6th Amendment of the Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

It’s sad that it is so difficult to get elected officials to debate, let alone vote on, legislation that is in direct violation to the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold. But these are certainly Orwellian times where normal thinking no longer applies.

As Rand Paul points out in the video below about the 2012 NDAA vote, “The senate voted 55 to 45 to allow indefinite detention of US citizens without jury trial. We have become Orwellian without even knowing it.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ALN7LTeLxtI#!

When the Senate resumes after recess, the NDAA 2013 will likely pass even with a recorded vote on Paul’s amendment, but at least the traitors will put themselves on display for all to see.

If there are any true oath keepers in positions of power, this would be a perfect time to arrest those who vote against this amendment. Their treason to the Constitution couldn’t be any clearer.

Leave a comment

Oath Keepers to Place Billboard Outside Ft. Leavenworth to Protest Small Wars Journal Article Demonizing Tea Party as Future “Enemy” of U.S. Military

Oath Keepers is putting up a billboard right outside the main gate of Ft. Leavenworth Kansas to respond directly to the Small Wars Journal article by Leavenworth instructor Colonel Kevin Benson which paints the Tea Party movement as a future military opponent during domestic CONUS operations by the U.S. military.   You can read more on that article here and here.  Here is the billboard we are putting up:

Click to Enlarge in a New Browser Window

Since Colonel Benson has chosen to demonize the Tea Party movement, by using the Tea Party as the “bad guys”- along with militias – in his hypothetical scenario of future domestic military operations, and since he is apparently using his position at Ft. Leavenworth to brainwash young officers into thinking that the Tea Party is a potential future enemy they will have to fire upon, we feel it is crucial to counter his propaganda in as direct a manner as possible, sending a clear message not just to him, but to his students there at Ft. Leavenworth and to all others stationed there, and to the broader Army.   Those young officers need to understand that if they fire on fellow Americans, permitting themselves to be used as tools of oppression, and if they participate in martial law on U.S. soil, then they will become the new “red coats”and will be desecrating and destroying all that generations of American fighting men have bled and died to secure – our liberty.

We stand in defense of the rights of all Americans, but since Colonel Benson has chosen to name the Tea Party members in particular as possible future military enemies during domestic operations, we are coming to the defense of the Tea Party in this case.

Oath Keepers is also launching a national campaign to put similar billboards outside of military bases across the United States.  We were planning on starting with Camp Lajeune, North Carolina or Ft. Stewart Georgia, but Colonel Benson’s outrageous and dangerous article in the Small Wars Journal compelled us to make Ft. Leavenworth the first base for our billboard campaign.

The billboard will cost an estimated $1,650.00v for the set-up and two months rent.    Oath Keepers Lifetime Member Richard Allison has already stepped up and donated $500.00 for this billboard.  He met Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes during his trip to Minnesota, and when Stewart showed Richard the mock up for the billboard, Richard pulled out his wallet and slapped down five one-hundred dollar bills to get this project rolling.  Thanks Richard!  You set an excellent example for others to follow.  So now, we only need $1,150.00 to put this billboard up.  Once we reach that amount, we will continue to raise funds for other billboards outside of military bases across the United States.   All donations for the billboards will be used exclusively for that purpose.

Oath Keepers of Kansas, lead by Richard Fry, who is also Patriot Coalition General counsel, have secured the billboard, which is 3/4 of a block outside the main gate at Ft. Leavenworth.   Oath Keepers of Kansas will also secure a billboard outside of Ft. Riley, Kansas, where the famous 1st Infantry Division (the “Big Red One”) is stationed, and we will place a more general “honor your oath” billboard there.  That Ft. Riley billboard will cost an estimated $1,000.00 for two months.

Below are mock-ups of billboards we will use outside of Marine Corps bases and Army bases.  We will start with combat arms troops, but will also do billboards outside of bases for all branches, including outside of Air Force bases where Predator Drone “pilots” work.   This is just the beginning.  The ultimate goal is billboards outside of every base in America.

For Army Bases:

Click to Enlarge in a New Browser Window

______________________________________________________________________________________________
For Marine Bases:

Click to Enlarge in a New Browser Window

38 Comments

Oath Keepers of Orange County General Meeting for Tuesday March 13, 2012 with Speaker: Ron Thomas

Ron Thomas, father of Kelly Thomas, Former Army Ranger, Marine Consultant, and OC Deputy Sheriff will be updating on the Kelly Thomas/Fullerton PD case.

We will also discuss and update on the Fullerton oaths that were pulled and the Rawesome Foods raid & case. NDAA updates & Oath Keeper Ham network also on agenda.

Here are some previous posts about the Kelly Thomas/Fullerton PD case:

Kelly Thomas Memorial Rally and Protest
Update on the Kelly Thomas Beating and Death

Orange County Archery LLC
18792 Brookhurst Street, Fountain Valley, CA

The OC Archery is on Brookhurst between Ellis and Garfield in Fountain Valley (Near the 405 FWY Brookhurst off-ramp)

Visit our Meetings page for information and schedule of our General Meetings.

Click to enlarge

1 Comment

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:

13 Comments

Oath Keepers of Orange County General Meeting for Feb 28, 2012 with Speaker: Ron Thomas

Update on General Meeting Tonight –  Ron Thomas will NOT be speaking due to not feeling well and will speak at our next scheduled meeting.

Ron Thomas, father of Kelly Thomas, Former Army Ranger, Marine Consultant, and OC Deputy Sheriff will be updating on the Kelly Thomas/Fullerton PD case.

We will also discuss and update on the Fullerton oaths that were pulled and the Rawesome Foods raid & case. NDAA updates & Oath Keeper Ham network also on agenda.

Here are some previous posts about the Kelly Thomas/Fullerton PD case:

Kelly Thomas Memorial Rally and Protest
Update on the Kelly Thomas Beating and Death

Orange County Archery LLC
18792 Brookhurst Street, Fountain Valley, CA

The OC Archery is on Brookhurst between Ellis and Garfield in Fountain Valley (Near the 405 FWY Brookhurst off-ramp)

Visit our Meetings page for information and schedule of our General Meetings.

Click to enlarge

3 Comments

Rob Natelson: NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022: Scary Potential

Rob_Natelson_Original_Constitution

-

Please read article at the Tenth Amendment Center:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/06/ndaa-sections-1021-and-1022-scary-potential/

NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022: Scary Potential

by Rob Natelson

-

Are the detainment provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act serious?

Yes they are.

This is a complicated area, and there has been a lot of word-fudging in spinning this subject. So bear with me as we take things step by step.

*    The U.S. Constitution generally guarantees the “Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.” The writ of habeas corpus is a court order a prisoner can obtain requiring the jailer to come into court and justify his detention of the prisoner. It is a traditional way in which those held can demand a fair trial by jury in a civilian court. The writ of habeas corpus is a treasured part of our traditional liberty. Belief that the British were infringing it was one cause of the American Revolution.  (The writ is called a “privilege” rather than a “right” because it is a creation of the legal system rather than a natural right, like the right to free speech.)

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, the privilege of habeas corpus is guaranteed to all those in “allegiance” to the United States. “Allegiance” is an old technical legal term that includes both citizens and aliens legally in the country.

*    By successfully convincing a judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus, citizens, foreign visitors, and legal residents may obtain a hearing that may induce the judge to order a civilian trial. It matters not how heinous the crimes they are accused of. For example, a person charged with trying to blow up a building on behalf of a foreign power can be charged with treason. But while still merely accused, he is entitled to all the protections of due process, including a fair, public trial before a jury of his peers.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, habeas corpus does NOT apply if the Congress, as an incident to its war power, “suspends” the writ for a particular time and place. However, the Constitution says that Congress may “suspend” the writ only “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Congress has not suspended the writ, and it is doubtful that occasional acts of terrorism constitute a sufficient “rebellion or invasion” to justify doing so. Even if Congress could suspend the writ, a Bill of Suspension would be a serious, much-debated measure for which Congress would have to assume direct political accountability. Political accountability is not a big priority with Congress right now.

*    Members of all belligerent armed forces (both sides) are subject to military, not civilian, law.

*    Thus, by the law of war, the executive (and the military officers under him) may incarcerate for the duration of the conflict any enemy combatants captured in the theater of war.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning the executive has no constitutional power (without formal congressional suspension of the writ) to lock up citizens or lawful aliens apprehended outside the war theater. If accused of crime, the accused has the privilege of a jury trial in a civilian court. By the Constitution’s original meaning, this constitutional right does not apply to enemy aliens, wherever apprehended.

*    In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (erroneously, in my view) held that alien Guantanamo detainees have the right to habeas corpus to determine if they are really enemy combatants. Still, under this case if they are found to be enemy combatants they can go back to prison indefinitely.

Now, with that background, let’s look at the critical language of the Act, again step by step:

§1021: (a) Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.

Comment: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is the resolution passed in the wake of 9/11 authorizing the President to fight terrorism. The National Defense Authorization Act is sometimes justified as mere clarification of the AUMF.

(b) . . A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

Comment: This provision includes people accused of certain terror-related crimes. Fine— but it does not exempt U.S. citizens or legal aliens with U.S. territory. Thus, far, it appears they can be “detain[ed] . . . pending disposition under the law of war.” But what does that mean?

c) . .  The disposition of a person under the law of war . .  may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. . .

Comment: This clarifies that the government may detain anyone so charged “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” Apologists for the law point out that it permits other dispositions “under the law of war,” including civilian trial. But the point is that the law does not require those other dispositions. The administration can simply decide to detain you “without trial until the end of hostilities.”

(d) . . . Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Comment: This is a basis for the argument that all Congress is really doing is clarifying the AUMF. But this is cold comfort, because the position of the Obama administration is that the AUMF always authorized rounding up citizen-suspects and holding them without trial!

(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial.

Here are the principal Supreme Court decisions the law preserves:

(1) A post-Civil War case (Ex Parte Milligan) saying a citizen non-combatant  incarcerated outside the theater of war is entitled to habeas corpus. (This holding doesn’t help those accused of being combatants.)

(2) The World War II-era Quirin decision that permitted President Roosevelt to detain, try in a secret military hearing, and execute a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. territory and accused of being a German spy. Obviously, this decision—which is widely acknowledged to be egregious—offers no protection against the National Defense Authorization Act.

(3) The 2004 Hamdi case, which says that a U.S. citizen captured bearing arms in the war theater is NOT entitled to habeas corpus. He is entitled only to a minimal military hearing without a jury and without many of the traditional due process protections.. (Some apologists for the National Defense Authorization Act are claiming the Hamdi case granted a right of habeas corpus; this claim is flatly wrong.)

(4) The 2008 Boumedienne decision, which held that alien Guantanamo detainees are entitled to habeas corpus and a civilian hearing to show that they were non-combatants.

Obviously, none of these prior holdings addresses the habeas corpus rights of a U.S. citizen or legal alien apprehended within the U.S. and charged with being an enemy combatant. So there is no Supreme Court case providing the necessary protection preserved by the law’s provision that “existing law or authorities” are preserved.

§ 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Comment: This section says that the administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite military custody. But it does not prevent the administration from doing so.

* * * *

When you look at sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act objectively, they become scary in their potential. If the administration does try to use it to lock up American citizens without habeas corpus, the Supreme Court probably will void the incarceration and require a civilian trial. But in the normal course of events, vindicating one’s rights could take years.

Of course, in America, we traditionally don’t lock up citizens on mere suspicion. . . .

Or is that is now changing?

-

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

1 Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,711 other followers

%d bloggers like this: