Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Feds and City Of Oakland Mano a Mano Over Largest Marijuana Dispensary
The Feds are at it again. Their relentless attempt to shut down the largest medical marijuana shop in the world, Harborside Health Center, continues.
After losing a recent court judgement that said they couldn't evict Harborside under federal forfeiture, the Feds are now making the argument that the state and city cannot stand in their way of seizing the dispensary.
Back in July, the federal government filed forfeiture proceedings against the property that Harborside rents. Although Harborside has not violated any state laws, action by the Feds essentially forced the landlords Anna Chretien and Concourse Business Center to file eviction charges with the Feds.
On Friday November 30th of this year a superior court ruled that Harborside cannot be evicted from their location simply because their product violates federal law. The granted stay of forfeiture was seen as a huge victory for Harborside and for state sovereignty in a never-ending battle by the Feds.
"We are heartened by the robust support provided to Harborside by our elected officials and the California courts," said Harborside's co-founder Steve DeAngelo. "The decision makes it clear that organizations that comply with state law deserve the protection of that law."
“For years, in medical cannabis cases, California state courts have followed a principle that cities should not be able to ask a state court to ‘indirectly’ enforce federal controlled substance laws in a way that disadvantages cannabis patients and caregivers," said Harborside's lawyer, Henry Wykowski. "However, this is the first opinion that extends that principle to private actors, such as landlords."
However, that small victory for Harborside was short lived. The Feds have now challenged the ruling saying that they have the power over states and cities because they have no ownership in the property being seized, and federal law supersedes state law.
In a brief, Justice Department attorney Kathryn Wyer writes:
Plaintiff, the City of Oakland, has initiated this separate action in an attempt to halt forfeiture proceedings that the United States has initiated against an Oakland property housing a marijuana dispensary. Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed after the time to assert a claim in the forfeiture action itself had passed. And in any event, Plaintiff lacks any ownership interest in the property. Plaintiff therefore lacks standing to participate in the forfeiture action
The brief further notes that the Controlled Substance Act applies to all states no matter if they have changed their own laws or not:
Plaintiff argues that the United States is stopped from seeking forfeiture of the Oakland property because it had adopted a 'policy of nonenforcement' of the CSA against all those in compliance with state law. Even assuming that the marijuana dispensary operating at the Oakland property – which is alleged to be the largest on the planet, with annual gross sales revenue of $20 million – were in compliance with California law, this claim cannot succeed.
...the United States has never misrepresented the fact that marijuana distribution, possession, and cultivation remain illegal under federal law...
Wyer even takes a swipe at the state and city for only sticking up for Harborside because "it has received a windfall of millions of dollars in tax and sales revenues through the operation of illegal marijuana dispensaries within its borders."
Indeed, Harborside has been a major benefit to the state of California and Oakland, as it's estimated $20 million in annual sales operating as a non-profit have generated over $3 million is local and state taxes. Yet, apparently Wyer thinks that is a bad thing.
Clearly the Feds have little respect for state rights, property rights, medical rights, and local sovereignty -- all of which are being tried in this case. Meanwhile, one of the most respected, lawful, and successful medical marijuana treatment centers is facing closure.
Learn more about the Harborside Health Center by watching their video:
A recent Gallup poll showed that 64% of Americans want the federal government out of state marijuana laws:
Monday, November 19, 2012
Wa State Farms Block Agenda 21 & UN Agenda 21
The Washington State Farm Bureau just convened its 93rd annual convention.
Started in 1920, The WSFB is a voluntary, grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of local farm and ranch families.
Every year the WSFB's volunteer leaders from across the state get together to discuss issues and adopt new policy. The WSFB is unique in that its members, delegates from each of the 25 county Farm Bureaus, adopt the policies, ranging from land use to fiscal issues.
This year’s convention was especially exciting due to the passage of new policy, set to put a barrier against the overreach of the federal government and even foreign ones.
"This year we indeed adopted a policy opposing all aspects of UN Agenda 21 as well as a policy opposing the use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) to spy on farms without express permission from the landowner," said John Stuhlmiller, Director of Government Relations.
"As an Okanogan County Farm Bureau member, I am personally very excited about the new policies that were passed. The issues facing Okanogan County today can all be tied back to Agenda 21 at some level - whether it be land acquisitions, wolves, or salmon recovery," said Pamela Leslie.
She also noted that, "Drones are of great concern as well. Drones are being used around the country to spy on farmers and ranchers, as well as average citizens. By adopting these new policies, the Washington State Farm Bureau has sent a strong message that it will aid Okanogan County in our grassroots movement to fight this kind of tyranny."
An Environmental Protection Agency project entitled Landscape Characterization and Change Detection Methods Development Research, says the EPA will use Department of Defense and NASA designed “UAV and satellite based remote sensor data to provide a continuous environmental monitoring capability.”
Many don't buy the government’s claim of using drones to protect the environment, especially after the recently discovered Air Force intelligence brief that states, if drones "accidentally" capture surveillance footage of Americans, the data can be stored and analyzed by the Pentagon for up to 90 days.
Farmers nationwide were upset when it was learned that the EPA was spying on Cattle Ranchers in Iowa and Nebraska. Seattle residents were also up in arms after the Seattle Police Department received a drone.
Alabama made news when they adopted a law protecting due process and private property by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in Agenda 21. Washington farmers now join the ranks of citizens nationwide moving to protect their constitutional rights.
The text of the policy changes are as follows:
Started in 1920, The WSFB is a voluntary, grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of local farm and ranch families.
Every year the WSFB's volunteer leaders from across the state get together to discuss issues and adopt new policy. The WSFB is unique in that its members, delegates from each of the 25 county Farm Bureaus, adopt the policies, ranging from land use to fiscal issues.
This year’s convention was especially exciting due to the passage of new policy, set to put a barrier against the overreach of the federal government and even foreign ones.
"This year we indeed adopted a policy opposing all aspects of UN Agenda 21 as well as a policy opposing the use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) to spy on farms without express permission from the landowner," said John Stuhlmiller, Director of Government Relations.
"As an Okanogan County Farm Bureau member, I am personally very excited about the new policies that were passed. The issues facing Okanogan County today can all be tied back to Agenda 21 at some level - whether it be land acquisitions, wolves, or salmon recovery," said Pamela Leslie.
She also noted that, "Drones are of great concern as well. Drones are being used around the country to spy on farmers and ranchers, as well as average citizens. By adopting these new policies, the Washington State Farm Bureau has sent a strong message that it will aid Okanogan County in our grassroots movement to fight this kind of tyranny."
An Environmental Protection Agency project entitled Landscape Characterization and Change Detection Methods Development Research, says the EPA will use Department of Defense and NASA designed “UAV and satellite based remote sensor data to provide a continuous environmental monitoring capability.”
Many don't buy the government’s claim of using drones to protect the environment, especially after the recently discovered Air Force intelligence brief that states, if drones "accidentally" capture surveillance footage of Americans, the data can be stored and analyzed by the Pentagon for up to 90 days.
Farmers nationwide were upset when it was learned that the EPA was spying on Cattle Ranchers in Iowa and Nebraska. Seattle residents were also up in arms after the Seattle Police Department received a drone.
Alabama made news when they adopted a law protecting due process and private property by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in Agenda 21. Washington farmers now join the ranks of citizens nationwide moving to protect their constitutional rights.
The text of the policy changes are as follows:
New Policy – Agenda 21 (add to Section VIII – Forestry and Public Lands)
We oppose the United Nations Agenda 21 and the ratification or implementation of any or all of its components.
The UAV policy is:
180 – Right of Entry for Government Agents
The Constitution requires government agents to obtain a search warrant before entering private property. The Constitution further requires that the search warrant contain a specific description of the property to be searched. The Constitution applies to any government agent who enters farms or ranches in order to conduct an inspection.
We believe government agents must ask permission of the owner or the owner’s authorized representative prior to entering a farm or ranch for purposes of conducting an inspection. If permission is denied, the agent should obtain a search warrant that specifies the reason for the inspection.
The agent should inform the owner/agent that they have the legal right to ask that a search warrant be obtained prior to an inspection. Agents should not retaliate against citizens who exercise this Constitutional right.
We believe government agents may enter property without the owner’s permission only if an emergency exists that constitutes an immediate threat to human life.
We oppose the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to conduct aerial inspections of farms and ranches unless explicit permission has been granted by the landowner. (2002, amended 2012)
Saturday, November 10, 2012
10 Easy Steps To American Serfdom & New Bankster Tricks
The Common Sense Show
November 8, 2012
The United States is quickly descending down the path of serfdom in a 21st century application of modern day feudalism.
A new strategy has appeared in America which threatens to make a real live serf out of nearly every American citizen. The main emphasis of this attack is the ongoing conversion to Communitarian law and a dramatic departure from our time honored Constitutional law. There are ten steps to implement on the way to your enslavement and incarceration into a feudal society of that only Satan could be proud of.
The erosion of these liberties is not the result of a series of random, unconstitutional acts by power-hungry globalist minions. Instead, the new and emerging system of American justice is bringing forth a sweeping set of reforms which is quickly ending our experiment with inalienable, individual liberties.
This new system of justice is called Communitarian law and is the antithesis of Constitutional law as it champions community interests at the expense of individual liberties. Terms like sustainability, smart growth, collectivism and sacrificing for the greater good represent some of the buzz words and phrases of Communitarian law.
Americans have come to expect that our individual liberties are granted by God, not by man or by government. We also believe, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, that these rights are inalienable and may not be taken away by government. The United States Constitution prevents not only the implementation of tyrannical practices against it citizens, it also prohibits the will of the majority from abusing the civil liberties of the minority.
Sadly, the United States Constitution is on life support and the patient is nearing the end. So where is this leading the country?
The Supreme Court case of Kelo v. The City of New London, CT. (2005) usurped America’s Fifth Amendment rights with regard to property rights. Government can now seize your property, and for the first time, award your property to a private entity who is presumably a cohort of someone in government.
Some Americans are decrying these acts as unconstitutional. These Americans are correct. However, all of these acts are legal under the Communitarian system of justice because the intent is based on what is in the common good and not on what is constitutionally legal. And who gets to decide what is in the common, or the communist good?
That would be the people brigning you Communitarian law, the global elite. Don’t forget the old axiom of the Golden Rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules. In the modern day application of this old saying states that he who prints the money gets to steal your home. Please read on for the explanation.
Our abandonment of the U.S. Constitution in favor of Communitarian law allows the Federal Reserve, through QE3, to purchase $40 billion of mortgage based securities and will continue to purchase $40 billion worth of mortgaged properties each and every month until they own every single piece of real estate in the country.
This process began on September 13, 2012 and will continue until all privately owned properties are held by the money changers.
On the way to the new serfdom in America, a new house stealing strategy has emerged over the past several months. With many homeowners presently underwater, the five megabanks are conducting reappraisals and billing the difference between the loan amount and the current appraised value of the house. When the homeowner cannot find the cash to pay the difference, usually within a 30 day window, the bank forecloses.
If the bail out money from QE1 and QE2 had been applied to the totality of America’s home commercial mortgages, every home and business mortgage would have been paid off in full. Instead, the bail out money went to crooked bankers who broke the law in perpetuating the crises in the first place, which sent our home values plummeting.
The bailouts set the stage for the Federal Reserve to accomplish its two goals of seizing all private property in American and collapsing the dollar as a prelude to the roll out of a new global currency.
Welcome to the new Americana feudal manor and you and I are the serfs. Maybe this is why Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, over the past year, because the globalists realize that even the most dumbed down American might think that fighting for their home is worth taking on the corrupt federal government.
When one steps back and looks at the brilliant strategy concocted by the global elite, one can only marvel at their cleverness.
First, Wall Street plays the reckless derivative debt game and collapses the world’s economy.
Second, home values dramatically drop.
Third, the banks begin seizing underwater properties with money printed out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
Fourth, the economy eventually collapses from printing 40 billion dollars of mortgage backed securities every single month.
Fifth, global currency and global government is ushered in.
Sixth, Obama adopts the UN gun ban and uses the newly purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition on the dissenters.
Seventh, with Americans out of their homes, they can be forced into the new stack and pack cities complete with their 200-500 square foot apartments.
Eighth, Americans will be subject to forced vaccines and real depopulation will begin in earnest.
Nine, one child limits will be placed on families,
and tenth the 10% who survive this vicious transition will live in humanities darkest days in a hellish nightmare that even George Orwell could not have foreseen.
God help us!
November 8, 2012
The United States is quickly descending down the path of serfdom in a 21st century application of modern day feudalism.
A new strategy has appeared in America which threatens to make a real live serf out of nearly every American citizen. The main emphasis of this attack is the ongoing conversion to Communitarian law and a dramatic departure from our time honored Constitutional law. There are ten steps to implement on the way to your enslavement and incarceration into a feudal society of that only Satan could be proud of.
The erosion of these liberties is not the result of a series of random, unconstitutional acts by power-hungry globalist minions. Instead, the new and emerging system of American justice is bringing forth a sweeping set of reforms which is quickly ending our experiment with inalienable, individual liberties.
This new system of justice is called Communitarian law and is the antithesis of Constitutional law as it champions community interests at the expense of individual liberties. Terms like sustainability, smart growth, collectivism and sacrificing for the greater good represent some of the buzz words and phrases of Communitarian law.
Americans have come to expect that our individual liberties are granted by God, not by man or by government. We also believe, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, that these rights are inalienable and may not be taken away by government. The United States Constitution prevents not only the implementation of tyrannical practices against it citizens, it also prohibits the will of the majority from abusing the civil liberties of the minority.
Sadly, the United States Constitution is on life support and the patient is nearing the end. So where is this leading the country?
The Supreme Court case of Kelo v. The City of New London, CT. (2005) usurped America’s Fifth Amendment rights with regard to property rights. Government can now seize your property, and for the first time, award your property to a private entity who is presumably a cohort of someone in government.
Some Americans are decrying these acts as unconstitutional. These Americans are correct. However, all of these acts are legal under the Communitarian system of justice because the intent is based on what is in the common good and not on what is constitutionally legal. And who gets to decide what is in the common, or the communist good?
That would be the people brigning you Communitarian law, the global elite. Don’t forget the old axiom of the Golden Rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules. In the modern day application of this old saying states that he who prints the money gets to steal your home. Please read on for the explanation.
Our abandonment of the U.S. Constitution in favor of Communitarian law allows the Federal Reserve, through QE3, to purchase $40 billion of mortgage based securities and will continue to purchase $40 billion worth of mortgaged properties each and every month until they own every single piece of real estate in the country.
This process began on September 13, 2012 and will continue until all privately owned properties are held by the money changers.
On the way to the new serfdom in America, a new house stealing strategy has emerged over the past several months. With many homeowners presently underwater, the five megabanks are conducting reappraisals and billing the difference between the loan amount and the current appraised value of the house. When the homeowner cannot find the cash to pay the difference, usually within a 30 day window, the bank forecloses.
If the bail out money from QE1 and QE2 had been applied to the totality of America’s home commercial mortgages, every home and business mortgage would have been paid off in full. Instead, the bail out money went to crooked bankers who broke the law in perpetuating the crises in the first place, which sent our home values plummeting.
The bailouts set the stage for the Federal Reserve to accomplish its two goals of seizing all private property in American and collapsing the dollar as a prelude to the roll out of a new global currency.
Welcome to the new Americana feudal manor and you and I are the serfs. Maybe this is why Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, over the past year, because the globalists realize that even the most dumbed down American might think that fighting for their home is worth taking on the corrupt federal government.
When one steps back and looks at the brilliant strategy concocted by the global elite, one can only marvel at their cleverness.
First, Wall Street plays the reckless derivative debt game and collapses the world’s economy.
Second, home values dramatically drop.
Third, the banks begin seizing underwater properties with money printed out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
Fourth, the economy eventually collapses from printing 40 billion dollars of mortgage backed securities every single month.
Fifth, global currency and global government is ushered in.
Sixth, Obama adopts the UN gun ban and uses the newly purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition on the dissenters.
Seventh, with Americans out of their homes, they can be forced into the new stack and pack cities complete with their 200-500 square foot apartments.
Eighth, Americans will be subject to forced vaccines and real depopulation will begin in earnest.
Nine, one child limits will be placed on families,
and tenth the 10% who survive this vicious transition will live in humanities darkest days in a hellish nightmare that even George Orwell could not have foreseen.
God help us!
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
More Than Meets The Eye That Rand Paul Voted Against GMO Label Law As Written?
Federal government prohibition of GMO labeling does not, cannot legally exist
But has Sen. Paul really betrayed the American people by voting against S. Amdt. 2310, or are there inherent constitutional problems with the amendment that predicated his "Nay" vote? Upon further investigation, it appears as though the latter scenario is more accurate, as S. Amdt. 2310 falsely assumes that the federal government has the authority to grant states permission to label GMOs.
As others have already begun to point out in the days following the amendment's rejection, the legislation was essentially toothless from the start. The federal government does not, after all, have the constitutional authority to prohibit states from requiring GMO labeling, let alone permit it. The federal government has also never even tried, at this point, to legally stop individual states from mandating GMO labeling. This means S. Amdt. 2310 was a faulty attempt to address an issue that is not even an issue, and one that attempted to do so using an unconstitutional approach.
A key thing to remember in all this is that neither the federal government nor the U.S. Congress has any constitutional authority to grant states permission to label or not to label GMOs. Under the U.S. Constitution, individual states already possess their own inherent authority to determine how they wish to handle the GMO labeling issue, and the federal government does not legally possess any authority whatsoever in the matter.
Americans need to remember that our individual rights and the rights of our states, as outlined in the Constitution, are not at all contingent upon whether or not the federal government approves or disapproves of them. These rights are wholly independent of the federal government, regardless of how this increasingly tyrannical overlord system tries to interfere with them, or pretend as though it is some kind of omniscient gatekeeper that decides whether or not to grant these rights.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies may still attempt to restrict states from labeling GMOs through loopholes and other crafty regulatory means. But in no scenario does a state require a federal amendment that "permits" states to label GMOs -- states are free to label, under the Constitution, at any time. And passing an amendment that "permits" something that is already legal and constitutional would only grants the federal government perceived power over a matter that it does not actually possess.
If the federal government is given the power to "permit" GMO labeling now, for instance, then it can "un-permit" GMO labeling later, despite the fact that it never possessed the power to permit in the first place. This is an important concept to be aware of when dealing with legislation and amendments, and one that Sen. Paul appears to have been fully aware of when voting against S. Amdt. 2310
An amendment to the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012 (S. 3240), also known as the 2012 Farm Bill, that would have "permitted" individual states to require that food, beverages, and other edible products containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) be labeled, has been struck down. And among the Senate members who voted against the amendment was Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who recently faced a gauntlet of criticism over his perceived endorsement of globalist presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The wording of the amendment, known as S. Amdt. 2310, states that it would "permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient." Put forth by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), S. Amdt. 2310 was viewed by many as a viable way to help individual states pass GMO labeling laws without fear of retribution by the biotechnology industry and its lackeys in the federal government.
S. Amdt. 2310 is a product of Vermont's own failed attempt at passing GMO labeling laws recently, an endeavor that was allegedly squelched by Monsanto when the biotechnology giant threatened to sue the state of Vermont if it moved forward any further with the measure (http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html). The federal government's hardline stance in favor of GMOs also appears to have been an intimidating factor in the state's backing down as well.
But S. Amdt. 2310 ultimately failed to pass, with only a single Senate Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voting in favor it. The rest of the party, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, as well as many Senate Democrats, voted against the measure. And many in the natural health community are now claiming that Sen. Paul's action in the matter is yet another example of betrayal by this perceived champion of liberty to promote honesty in food labeling.
NOTE: With mainstream media is controlled by only 6 major corporations, it isn't even a limited challenge to paint the picture that the dominant society wants you to have. Isn't it important that we remember, and remind others, that the States do not need permission from the feds for anything. Federal jurisdiction is confined to DC and any federal buildings or properties, beyond that it's only what they can intimidate others into believing that they have authority.
Perhaps Rand Paul was the only one to admit to this, how hard would it be to control any explanatory statement he would have to that effect?
But has Sen. Paul really betrayed the American people by voting against S. Amdt. 2310, or are there inherent constitutional problems with the amendment that predicated his "Nay" vote? Upon further investigation, it appears as though the latter scenario is more accurate, as S. Amdt. 2310 falsely assumes that the federal government has the authority to grant states permission to label GMOs.
As others have already begun to point out in the days following the amendment's rejection, the legislation was essentially toothless from the start. The federal government does not, after all, have the constitutional authority to prohibit states from requiring GMO labeling, let alone permit it. The federal government has also never even tried, at this point, to legally stop individual states from mandating GMO labeling. This means S. Amdt. 2310 was a faulty attempt to address an issue that is not even an issue, and one that attempted to do so using an unconstitutional approach.
A key thing to remember in all this is that neither the federal government nor the U.S. Congress has any constitutional authority to grant states permission to label or not to label GMOs. Under the U.S. Constitution, individual states already possess their own inherent authority to determine how they wish to handle the GMO labeling issue, and the federal government does not legally possess any authority whatsoever in the matter.
Americans need to remember that our individual rights and the rights of our states, as outlined in the Constitution, are not at all contingent upon whether or not the federal government approves or disapproves of them. These rights are wholly independent of the federal government, regardless of how this increasingly tyrannical overlord system tries to interfere with them, or pretend as though it is some kind of omniscient gatekeeper that decides whether or not to grant these rights.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies may still attempt to restrict states from labeling GMOs through loopholes and other crafty regulatory means. But in no scenario does a state require a federal amendment that "permits" states to label GMOs -- states are free to label, under the Constitution, at any time. And passing an amendment that "permits" something that is already legal and constitutional would only grants the federal government perceived power over a matter that it does not actually possess.
If the federal government is given the power to "permit" GMO labeling now, for instance, then it can "un-permit" GMO labeling later, despite the fact that it never possessed the power to permit in the first place. This is an important concept to be aware of when dealing with legislation and amendments, and one that Sen. Paul appears to have been fully aware of when voting against S. Amdt. 2310
An amendment to the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012 (S. 3240), also known as the 2012 Farm Bill, that would have "permitted" individual states to require that food, beverages, and other edible products containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) be labeled, has been struck down. And among the Senate members who voted against the amendment was Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who recently faced a gauntlet of criticism over his perceived endorsement of globalist presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The wording of the amendment, known as S. Amdt. 2310, states that it would "permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient." Put forth by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), S. Amdt. 2310 was viewed by many as a viable way to help individual states pass GMO labeling laws without fear of retribution by the biotechnology industry and its lackeys in the federal government.
S. Amdt. 2310 is a product of Vermont's own failed attempt at passing GMO labeling laws recently, an endeavor that was allegedly squelched by Monsanto when the biotechnology giant threatened to sue the state of Vermont if it moved forward any further with the measure (http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html). The federal government's hardline stance in favor of GMOs also appears to have been an intimidating factor in the state's backing down as well.
But S. Amdt. 2310 ultimately failed to pass, with only a single Senate Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voting in favor it. The rest of the party, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, as well as many Senate Democrats, voted against the measure. And many in the natural health community are now claiming that Sen. Paul's action in the matter is yet another example of betrayal by this perceived champion of liberty to promote honesty in food labeling.
NOTE: With mainstream media is controlled by only 6 major corporations, it isn't even a limited challenge to paint the picture that the dominant society wants you to have. Isn't it important that we remember, and remind others, that the States do not need permission from the feds for anything. Federal jurisdiction is confined to DC and any federal buildings or properties, beyond that it's only what they can intimidate others into believing that they have authority.
Perhaps Rand Paul was the only one to admit to this, how hard would it be to control any explanatory statement he would have to that effect?
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
First American Arrested By Drones To Argue 4th Amendment Violations
It’s been about a year since a North Dakota man was arrested after a local SWAT team tracked him down using a Predator drone it borrowed from the Department of Homeland Security.
Although the story has not been widely reported, Rodney Brossart became one of the first American citizens (if not the first) arrested by local law enforcement with the use of a federally owned drone aerial surveillance vehicle after holding the police at bay for over 16 hours.
Brossart’s run-in with law enforcement began after six cows found their way onto his property (about 3,000 acres near Lakota, North Dakota) and he refused to turn them over to officers. In fact, according to several sources, Brossart and a few family members ran police off his farm at the point of a gun.
Naturally, police weren’t pleased with Brossart’s brand of hospitality, so they held returned with a warrant, with a SWAT team, and with a determination to apprehend Brossart and the cows.
A standoff ensued and the Grand Forks police SWAT team made a call to a local Air Force base where they knew a Predator drone was deployed by the DHS. About three years before the Brossart incident, the police department had signed an agreement with DHS for the use of the drone.
No sooner did the call come in than the drone was airborne and Brossart’s precise location was pinpointed with laser-guided accuracy. The machine-gun toting SWAT officers rushed in, tased then arrested Brossart on various charges including terrorizing a sheriff, and the rest is history. Literally.
As the matter proceeds through the legal system, Bruce Quick, the lawyer representing Brossart, is decrying the “guerilla-like police tactics” used to track and capture his client, as well as the alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unwarranted searches and seizures.
While the police admittedly possessed an apparently valid search warrant, Quick asserts that no such judicial go-ahead was sought or obtained for the use of the Predator to track the suspect. Therein lies the constitutional rub.
In an interview with the press, Quick claims that the police exceeded their authority in several instances, especially when they decided to go around the Fourth Amendment and illegally search Brossart’s farm.
"The whole thing is full of constitutional violations," he says.
Quick goes so far as to call the police’s use of the taser "tortuous" and something only slightly below "water-boarding."
For its part, the legal team representing Grand Forks insists that such extraordinary measures were necessary in light of Brossart’s armed resistance of arrest and his family’s wielding of “high-powered rifles” in his defense.
Furthermore, the drone was deployed only as a last ditch effort to peacefully end the nearly daylong deadlock, the state avers.
"Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged," wrote state prosecutor Douglas Manbeck, as quoted by U.S. News.
As for the SWAT team's handling of the high-powered remote control surveillance aircraft, a spokesman for the unit told U.S. News that his men have "received training on the basic capabilities of the Predator" and that they follow very clear-cut guidelines for "when [they] can or cannot use a drone."
Manbeck defends the deployment of the drone, writing that "The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed. There is, furthermore, no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes."
Maybe, maybe not. This and other issues will be laid before the court when Brossart’s trial begins later this month.
Is there a legal distinction to be made between the level of search conducted by the human eye (whether the searcher is on foot or in a helicopter) and that of a drone’s powerful never-blinking optics? Such an inarguable increase in police perception is not an insignificant decrease in the privacy expectation enjoyed by landowners and protected for centuries by timeless principles of Anglo-American law.
Given this encroachment into the formerly sacrosanct territory of individual liberty, Americans are right to resist the government’s apparent plan to fill the skies of our Republic with remote-controlled agents of the President and police.
In point of fact, a warrant becomes unnecessary when the search is being conducted using a drone. The target of the hunt will likely be unaware that he is being tracked and thus government (at any level) can keep a close eye on those considered threats to national (or local) security without having to permit the eye of the court to look over their shoulder.
Quick seems to appreciate the danger posed by the proliferation of drones. "We're starting to see drones used more and more, but were they intended to be used by civilian law enforcement?" he told an interviewer. "That smacks of big brother to me. I think we need to think long and hard before we proceed down this path."
Not surprisingly, there are those who claim that a sheriff’s use of a Predator is no different from his use of a helicopter, and that those who warn of an impending surveillance state are alarmists who should be paid no mind.
However, as discussed above, there are irrefutable differences in technology between the two vehicles, not to mention the devices used by each to perform their assigned tasks.
Beyond these distinctions there is another more sinister drone quality that sets it apart from its more traditional airborne ancestor. Glenn Greenwald accurately assessed the threat in a recent piece published by Salon:
For those dismissing concerns about drones by claiming (falsely) that they are the equivalent of police helicopters, won’t those same people dismiss concerns over weaponized drones by arguing: there’s no difference between allowing the police to Taser you or shoot you themselves and allowing them to do that by drone? This is always how creeping police state powers are entrenched: one step at a time.
Still doubt such devious intent on the part of law enforcement? Witness the story of the Houston Police Department’s glee over their recent purchase of a drone. The Houston Chronicle reports:
Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the sheriff's office said the $300,000 ShadowHawk drone — purchased from Vanguard Defense Industries with federal homeland security grant funds — will take to the air in the coming months to provide another tool in the law enforcement arsenal.
"It's an exciting piece of equipment for us," he said. "We envision a lot of its uses primarily in the realm of public safety — looking at recovery of lost individuals and being able to utilize it for fire issues."
In the future, the drone could be equipped to carry nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun, McDaniel said.
Taser and bean-bag guns today, Hellfire missiles and machine guns tomorrow.
Still don’t believe the warning? Read what one commentator wrote (with obvious pride) about a similar small drone — the Switchblade:
“…it is an ingenious, miniature unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is also a weapon.”
Do the research: Drones are cheaper than helicopters, they are more agile, they are more accurate, they are quieter, they are smaller — all of which makes them exponentially deadlier. Drones are indeed the quieter, quicker killer and they will be used to the best of those abilities.
Although the story has not been widely reported, Rodney Brossart became one of the first American citizens (if not the first) arrested by local law enforcement with the use of a federally owned drone aerial surveillance vehicle after holding the police at bay for over 16 hours.
Brossart’s run-in with law enforcement began after six cows found their way onto his property (about 3,000 acres near Lakota, North Dakota) and he refused to turn them over to officers. In fact, according to several sources, Brossart and a few family members ran police off his farm at the point of a gun.
Naturally, police weren’t pleased with Brossart’s brand of hospitality, so they held returned with a warrant, with a SWAT team, and with a determination to apprehend Brossart and the cows.
A standoff ensued and the Grand Forks police SWAT team made a call to a local Air Force base where they knew a Predator drone was deployed by the DHS. About three years before the Brossart incident, the police department had signed an agreement with DHS for the use of the drone.
No sooner did the call come in than the drone was airborne and Brossart’s precise location was pinpointed with laser-guided accuracy. The machine-gun toting SWAT officers rushed in, tased then arrested Brossart on various charges including terrorizing a sheriff, and the rest is history. Literally.
As the matter proceeds through the legal system, Bruce Quick, the lawyer representing Brossart, is decrying the “guerilla-like police tactics” used to track and capture his client, as well as the alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unwarranted searches and seizures.
While the police admittedly possessed an apparently valid search warrant, Quick asserts that no such judicial go-ahead was sought or obtained for the use of the Predator to track the suspect. Therein lies the constitutional rub.
In an interview with the press, Quick claims that the police exceeded their authority in several instances, especially when they decided to go around the Fourth Amendment and illegally search Brossart’s farm.
"The whole thing is full of constitutional violations," he says.
Quick goes so far as to call the police’s use of the taser "tortuous" and something only slightly below "water-boarding."
For its part, the legal team representing Grand Forks insists that such extraordinary measures were necessary in light of Brossart’s armed resistance of arrest and his family’s wielding of “high-powered rifles” in his defense.
Furthermore, the drone was deployed only as a last ditch effort to peacefully end the nearly daylong deadlock, the state avers.
"Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged," wrote state prosecutor Douglas Manbeck, as quoted by U.S. News.
As for the SWAT team's handling of the high-powered remote control surveillance aircraft, a spokesman for the unit told U.S. News that his men have "received training on the basic capabilities of the Predator" and that they follow very clear-cut guidelines for "when [they] can or cannot use a drone."
Manbeck defends the deployment of the drone, writing that "The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed. There is, furthermore, no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes."
Maybe, maybe not. This and other issues will be laid before the court when Brossart’s trial begins later this month.
Is there a legal distinction to be made between the level of search conducted by the human eye (whether the searcher is on foot or in a helicopter) and that of a drone’s powerful never-blinking optics? Such an inarguable increase in police perception is not an insignificant decrease in the privacy expectation enjoyed by landowners and protected for centuries by timeless principles of Anglo-American law.
Given this encroachment into the formerly sacrosanct territory of individual liberty, Americans are right to resist the government’s apparent plan to fill the skies of our Republic with remote-controlled agents of the President and police.
In point of fact, a warrant becomes unnecessary when the search is being conducted using a drone. The target of the hunt will likely be unaware that he is being tracked and thus government (at any level) can keep a close eye on those considered threats to national (or local) security without having to permit the eye of the court to look over their shoulder.
Quick seems to appreciate the danger posed by the proliferation of drones. "We're starting to see drones used more and more, but were they intended to be used by civilian law enforcement?" he told an interviewer. "That smacks of big brother to me. I think we need to think long and hard before we proceed down this path."
Not surprisingly, there are those who claim that a sheriff’s use of a Predator is no different from his use of a helicopter, and that those who warn of an impending surveillance state are alarmists who should be paid no mind.
However, as discussed above, there are irrefutable differences in technology between the two vehicles, not to mention the devices used by each to perform their assigned tasks.
Beyond these distinctions there is another more sinister drone quality that sets it apart from its more traditional airborne ancestor. Glenn Greenwald accurately assessed the threat in a recent piece published by Salon:
For those dismissing concerns about drones by claiming (falsely) that they are the equivalent of police helicopters, won’t those same people dismiss concerns over weaponized drones by arguing: there’s no difference between allowing the police to Taser you or shoot you themselves and allowing them to do that by drone? This is always how creeping police state powers are entrenched: one step at a time.
Still doubt such devious intent on the part of law enforcement? Witness the story of the Houston Police Department’s glee over their recent purchase of a drone. The Houston Chronicle reports:
Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the sheriff's office said the $300,000 ShadowHawk drone — purchased from Vanguard Defense Industries with federal homeland security grant funds — will take to the air in the coming months to provide another tool in the law enforcement arsenal.
"It's an exciting piece of equipment for us," he said. "We envision a lot of its uses primarily in the realm of public safety — looking at recovery of lost individuals and being able to utilize it for fire issues."
In the future, the drone could be equipped to carry nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun, McDaniel said.
Taser and bean-bag guns today, Hellfire missiles and machine guns tomorrow.
Still don’t believe the warning? Read what one commentator wrote (with obvious pride) about a similar small drone — the Switchblade:
“…it is an ingenious, miniature unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is also a weapon.”
Do the research: Drones are cheaper than helicopters, they are more agile, they are more accurate, they are quieter, they are smaller — all of which makes them exponentially deadlier. Drones are indeed the quieter, quicker killer and they will be used to the best of those abilities.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Can The US President Kill You?
Can the president kill an American simply because the person is dangerous and his arrest would be impractical? Can the president be judge, jury and executioner of an American in a foreign country because he believes that would keep America safe? Can Congress authorize the president to do this?
Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify presidential killing in a speech at Northwestern University law school. In it, he recognized the requirement of the Fifth Amendment for due process. He argued that the president may substitute the traditionally understood due process – a public jury trial – with the president's own novel version of it; that would be a secret deliberation about killing. Without mentioning the name of the American the president recently ordered killed, Holder suggested that the president's careful consideration of the case of New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki constituted a substituted form of due process.
Holder argued that the act of reviewing al-Awlaki's alleged crimes, what he was doing in Yemen and the imminent danger he posed provided al-Awlaki with a substituted form of due process. He did not mention how this substitution applied to al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son and a family friend, who were also executed by CIA drones. And he did not address the utter absence of any support in the Constitution or Supreme Court case law for his novel theory.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty or property of any person without due process. Due process has numerous components, too numerous to address here, but the essence of it is "substantive fairness" and a "settled fair procedure." Under due process, when the government wants your life, liberty or property, the government must show that it is entitled to what it seeks by articulating the law it says you have violated and then proving its case in public to a neutral jury. And you may enjoy all the constitutional protections to defend yourself. Without the requirement of due process, nothing would prevent the government from taking anything it coveted or killing anyone – American or foreign – it hated or feared.
The killing of al-Awlaki and the others was without any due process whatsoever, and that should terrify all Americans. The federal government has not claimed the lawful power to kill Americans without due process since the Civil War; even then, the power to kill was claimed only in actual combat. Al-Awlaki and his son were killed while they were driving in a car in the desert. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Constitution applies in war and in peace. Even the Nazi soldiers and sailors who were arrested in Amagansett, N.Y., and in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., during World War II were entitled to a trial.
The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted by Congress in the days following 9/11. That statute permits the president to use force to repel those who planned and plotted 9/11 and who continue to plan and plot the use of terror tactics to assault the United States. Holder argued in his speech that arresting al-Awlaki – who has never been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime but who is believed to have encouraged terrorist attacks in the U.S. – would have been impractical, that killing him was the only option available to prevent him from committing more harm, and that Congress must have contemplated that when it enacted the AUMF.
Even if Holder is correct – that Congress contemplated presidential killing of Americans without due process when it enacted the AUMF – such a delegation of power is not Congress' to give. Congress is governed by the same Constitution that restrains the president. It can no more authorize the president to avoid due process than it can authorize him to extend his term in office beyond four years.
Instead of presenting evidence of al-Awlaki's alleged crimes to a grand jury and seeking an indictment and an arrest and a trial, the president presented the evidence to a small group of unnamed advisers, and then he secretly decided that al-Awlaki was such an imminent threat to America 10,000 miles away that he had to be killed. This is logic more worthy of Joseph Stalin than Thomas Jefferson. It effectively says that the president is above the Constitution and the rule of law, and that he can reject his oath to uphold both.
If the president can kill an American in Yemen, can he do so in Peoria? Even the British king, from whose tyrannical grasp the American colonists seceded, did not claim such powers. And we fought a Revolution against him.
Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify presidential killing in a speech at Northwestern University law school. In it, he recognized the requirement of the Fifth Amendment for due process. He argued that the president may substitute the traditionally understood due process – a public jury trial – with the president's own novel version of it; that would be a secret deliberation about killing. Without mentioning the name of the American the president recently ordered killed, Holder suggested that the president's careful consideration of the case of New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki constituted a substituted form of due process.
Holder argued that the act of reviewing al-Awlaki's alleged crimes, what he was doing in Yemen and the imminent danger he posed provided al-Awlaki with a substituted form of due process. He did not mention how this substitution applied to al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son and a family friend, who were also executed by CIA drones. And he did not address the utter absence of any support in the Constitution or Supreme Court case law for his novel theory.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty or property of any person without due process. Due process has numerous components, too numerous to address here, but the essence of it is "substantive fairness" and a "settled fair procedure." Under due process, when the government wants your life, liberty or property, the government must show that it is entitled to what it seeks by articulating the law it says you have violated and then proving its case in public to a neutral jury. And you may enjoy all the constitutional protections to defend yourself. Without the requirement of due process, nothing would prevent the government from taking anything it coveted or killing anyone – American or foreign – it hated or feared.
The killing of al-Awlaki and the others was without any due process whatsoever, and that should terrify all Americans. The federal government has not claimed the lawful power to kill Americans without due process since the Civil War; even then, the power to kill was claimed only in actual combat. Al-Awlaki and his son were killed while they were driving in a car in the desert. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Constitution applies in war and in peace. Even the Nazi soldiers and sailors who were arrested in Amagansett, N.Y., and in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., during World War II were entitled to a trial.
The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted by Congress in the days following 9/11. That statute permits the president to use force to repel those who planned and plotted 9/11 and who continue to plan and plot the use of terror tactics to assault the United States. Holder argued in his speech that arresting al-Awlaki – who has never been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime but who is believed to have encouraged terrorist attacks in the U.S. – would have been impractical, that killing him was the only option available to prevent him from committing more harm, and that Congress must have contemplated that when it enacted the AUMF.
Even if Holder is correct – that Congress contemplated presidential killing of Americans without due process when it enacted the AUMF – such a delegation of power is not Congress' to give. Congress is governed by the same Constitution that restrains the president. It can no more authorize the president to avoid due process than it can authorize him to extend his term in office beyond four years.
Instead of presenting evidence of al-Awlaki's alleged crimes to a grand jury and seeking an indictment and an arrest and a trial, the president presented the evidence to a small group of unnamed advisers, and then he secretly decided that al-Awlaki was such an imminent threat to America 10,000 miles away that he had to be killed. This is logic more worthy of Joseph Stalin than Thomas Jefferson. It effectively says that the president is above the Constitution and the rule of law, and that he can reject his oath to uphold both.
If the president can kill an American in Yemen, can he do so in Peoria? Even the British king, from whose tyrannical grasp the American colonists seceded, did not claim such powers. And we fought a Revolution against him.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Montanans Launch Recall Of Senators Who Vilolated Oaths To Constitution By Voting For NDAA
(HELENA) - Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:
"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."
Two Medals of Honor - Marine Gen. Smedley Butler
Rhodes noted that:
"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. "
Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."
Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.
Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" 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."
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:
"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."
Two Medals of Honor - Marine Gen. Smedley Butler
Rhodes noted that:
"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. "
Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."
Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.
Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" 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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)