2013 NDAA Does Nothing to Prohibit "Indefinite Military Detention"

by PatriotWatchdog 28. December 2012 23:37

After theatrical performances that rivaled Shakespearian theatre, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was passed by Congress late last week (315-107) in the House, and (81-14) in the Senate. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law despite threats to veto over various provisions.

Of concern to many Liberty watchdogs are certain provisions in last year’s NDAA that violated numerous clauses in the Constitution, including over half of the Bill of Rights. Various amendments were proposed to the 2013 NDAA in both the House and Senate alleging to address those concerns, none of which did anything.

The sole surviving section in the 2013 NDAA that speaks to the Rights of the People, Section 1029, does nothing at all.

NDAA for FY 2013, CONFERENCE REPORT, H.R. 4310, SEC. 1029:RIGHTS UNAFFECTED. 

“Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.” (emphasis added) 

There are two possible interpretations of Section 1029. The first is based on its literal meaning based on the section’s grammatical construction; the second is a practical interpretation that courts would likely apply if the literal meaning fails.

Let’s look at the last prepositional phrase in Section 1029, which states in plain language, “in the absence of such laws.” What does that mean? The plain reading of it means “if these laws were not in effect, or did not exist.”

Section 1029 in layman’s terms would read: “Nothing in “such laws” shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ, or to rights, for people entitled to the writ or those rights if “such lawsweren’t laws.” What are “such laws,” and what does “in the absence of” those laws mean?

“SUCH LAWS” = “2001 AUMF & 2012 NDAA”

IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LAWS = IF THESE LAWS WEREN’T PRESENT = IF THESE LAWS DIDN’T EXIST

Since we know that the 2001 AUMF and 2012 NDAA aren’t “absent,” meaning they are “present,” then the plain grammatical analysis of Section 1029 means the following:

If the 2001 AUMF and 2012 NDAA were not laws, then they couldn’t be construed to deny Habeas and Constitutional rights in an Article III court to persons in the U.S., but these laws do exist, and will be applied.*

*Stating that it would apply to persons “entitled” to the writ or rights is redundant, assuming we are talking about persons “in the United States” who are notin the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”

Since they "are" laws, then Section 1029 “literally” means absolutely nothing.

The courts, in interpreting the statute, would interpret it in such a way as to give substantive meaning to all sections. As noted above, the literal / grammatical interpretation renders Section 1029 meaningless, i.e., its presence in, or absence from the 2013 NDAA would have no influence on the meaning of the bill. Therefore, the courts would likely fall back on an interpretation that would give Section 1029 a substantive meaning on its face.

Senator Levin’s interpretation of Section 1029 is such that, for those persons detained in the United States -- that their rights will be determined as if the 2001 AUMF and/or 2012 NDAA never existed.

“The language in this conference report reflects my view that Congress did not restrict or deny anyone’s Constitutional rights in either the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.”

Senator Levin, Dec. 21, 2012

On Sept. 12, 2012, Federal judge Katherine Forrest ruled that Senator Levin’s assessment is incorrect. (See Hedges v. Obama ruling here.)

Without the 2001 AUMF and 2012 NDAA, unless there was another enabling law, there would be no statutory authority to detain persons  “pending disposition under the laws of war.”

Had Congress intended to prohibit the application of the “law of war” in the United States, they would have “explicitly” done so. They did not. Robert A. Heinlein, a former naval officer and Annapolis grad, better known as the “dean of science fiction” stated, “The best lie is the truth. Only tell them the part you want them to know.”

This is what Congress has done in both the 2012 and 2013 NDAA’s. Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA is a fine example of “best lie” tactics.

H.R. 4310, 2013 NDAA Conference Report, Section 1029: RIGHTS UNAFFECTED. The phrase “Rights Unaffected” in the section title is a continuation in the 2013 NDAA of the deceptive techniques used in the language and discussion of the 2012 NDAA, and is meant to inject confusion and to mislead the American public and others as to the actual effect of the law.

For example, 2012 NDAA, Section 1021 was titled: “AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.” A clear and plain reading of Section 1021 reveals it was an expansion of both the scope of the authorization, and targeting profile of covered persons.

Section 1022 was titled “Military Custody for Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists” implies that Section 1022 only relates to the custody of “foreign Al-Qaeda terrorists.” This is patently false, as it applies to U.S. citizens as well. Section 1022(b)(1) “[Applicability to] United States  Citizens” authorized the military detention of U.S. citizens at the military’s discretion.

(See detailed analysis here.)

There is no consensus as to what section 1029 does or does not do, except perhaps, in that it diverts attention away from the fundamental problem. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Presidents Bush and Obama, with the assistance of Congress, have systematically dismantled the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Intolerable acts like these were stated reasons in the Declaration of Independence for severing ties with England.

Neither the President nor Congress has the constitutional authority to turn “rights” into “privileges” to be metered out by the Executive Branch.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ex Parte Milligan (71 U.S. 2, Syllabus), drew the following conclusions. The reference below to the authority of military commissions “in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion” speaks directly to the Article I, Section 9 requirements regarding the suspension of habeas corpus, and the phrase “in which the Federal courts were open” speaks to a requirement in the “laws of war” that persons not recognized as “lawful combatants” be turned over to civilian authorities if the courts are open.

They also addressed the exceptions contained within the 5th Amendment to the Constitution which allow detention without “presentment or indictment” by a Grand Jury for those persons

serving in the “land or naval forces.” Lastly, they affirmed that Congress could not invest ‘military commissions” with any such power.

Lamdin P. Milligan, a resident and citizen of Indiana, was arrested by the military, tried before a military tribunal, and sentenced to death by hanging. Below are three points from the Supreme Court of the United States which contradict the actions of Presidents Bush and Obama post-9/11/2001, and by Congress regarding the application of the “laws of war” on civilians, as both unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the “laws of war.”

U.S. Supreme Court,  Ex Parte Milligan (71 U.S. 2, Syllabus),

“7. Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their judicial functions, had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offence, a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State nor a prisoner of war, nor a person in the military or naval service. And Congress could not invest them with any such power.

8. The guaranty of trial by jury contained in the Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances.

9. The Federal authority having been unopposed in the State of Indiana, and the Federal courts open for the trial of offences and the redress of grievances, the usages of war could not, under the Constitution, afford any sanction for the trial there of a citizen in civil life not connected with the military or naval service, by a military tribunal, for any offence whatever.”

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase, in a separate opinion in the Milligan case, stated that Congress cannot “establish and apply the laws of war” where no war has been declared, or where no war exists.

There has been no war declared against the United States, and the random acts of criminals who dislike or hate the United States does not satisfy the requirement that a “war exists” in the United States. Chief Justice Chase, in exercising Jefferson’s advice to “bind them down from mischief” with the “chains of the Constitution,” stated the following:

Chief Justice Chase, (also from Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, Separate opinion) stated:

“We by no means assert that Congress can establish and apply the laws of war where no war has been declared or exists.” (emphasis added)

Some Members of Congress will lie to the American people and affirmatively try to deceive us as the effect of laws they have passed under the pretense of “national defense.” Senator Lindsey Graham spoke at length on the floor of the United States Senate during the final debate of the 2013 NDAA that the President should have the authority to deny U.S. citizens their Constitutional rights. Not once in his speech did Senator Graham utter one syllable of concern that Section 1029 would hinder that authority.

In fact, his assessment directly conflicts with that of the proponents of Section 1029, including twice praising President Obama for assassinating a U.S. citizen who was not on a battlefield, who was “out of combat” according to the laws of war, who was not charged with a crime, who was denied legal counsel, who was denied a trial by a jury of his peers, etc...  in direct defiance of the “laws of war” he claims to know so well.

Senator Graham stated on December 21, 2012, during the final debate of the 2013 NDAA,

“…If we find an American citizen helping the enemy overseas—this President ordered the killing by drone of al-Awlaki, an American citizen overseas— I believe it was Yemen—and the President said: I have ample evidence he is now assisting al-Qaida overseas to attack American targets and I am going to take him out. Well done, Mr. President. Well done, Mr. President.”

“…There has never been a war in America where somebody within the American citizen community did not collaborate with the enemy. That is happening today. When that day comes and we capture that person, I want as an option the ability to hold them as an enemy combatant, as we did in other wars. They will get their day in court, but they will not be read their rights or given a lawyer on the spot because that would stop intelligence gathering.”

 “…They are seeking aid and comfort from Americans within our own country who are going to side with the enemy, unfortunately. When that day comes, I wish to make sure we have the ability in this war, as in every other war, to hold them and to gather intelligence—“

- Senator Lindsey Graham, from the Congressional Record, Dec. 21, 2012

 

The 30-year military lawyer from South Carolina voted “for” the final bill, as did 80 other U.S. Senators. The 2013 NDAA Conference Report did not need Senator Graham’s vote to pass, and it is doubtful, with his strong convictions that he would have voted for the 2013 NDAA if  Section 1029 undermined his agenda.

315 Congressmen also voted for final adoption of the 2013 NDAA, including 87% of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, 15% more than the 72% that voted for the 2012 NDAA. Obviously, things are going in the wrong direction if securing the “Blessings of Liberty” is the goal.

Either the Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land,” or it is not. The “laws of war” are never superior or supreme to the Constitution.

It is obvious by the actions of the federal government that they have no intention of restoring constitutional governance. It is an inherent duty of the sovereign States, and of the People to take immediate steps to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” by renouncing these intrusions upon our God-given Rights as unconstitutional, and to interpose within the authorities of the Constitution against these ‘intolerable acts.’

In 1821, in "Cohens v. Virginia," Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall stated the following:

“The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

Vote out of office every Member of Congress, every state legislator, and every local government official that refuses to uphold the Constitution.

Jeff Lewis
National Director, Patriot Coalition
Project Director, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER
EmailJeff@patriotcoalition.com
Phone: 252-876-9489
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog

Tags:

2012 VIDEOS FROM PATRIOT COALITION

by PatriotWatchdog 10. July 2012 20:58

Compatriots,

Below are links to numerous videos we've produced and/or captured thus far during 2012. Some are educational, others are entertaining, but ALL are informative.

COLONIAL LIBERTY SONGS, PERFORMED AT RALEIGH TAVERN, COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA, JULY 6, 2012.

http://patriotwatchdog.com/video/Colonial-Liberty-Songs-Raleigh-Tavern.flv  (35 minutes / 164 MB)

    NOTE: If you open the above link in Firefox, it will play in the browser. To save the video, click on "FILE" .... "SAVE AS" and select a location for it to download the video.

    The Colonial Liberty Songs video can also be viewed on the PatriotWatchdog channel at YouTube.

ALSO, on our Patriot Coalition Live! channel at USTREAM, there are additional videos recorded "outside" at Colonial Williamsburg of American Revolution reenactments, of speeches given at CPAC-Chicago from June 8, 2012, and videos from the Civil War reenactments and memorial service at Yorktown National Battlefields & Yorktown National Cemetery, respectively.

On The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER channel at Livestream, you can find the candidates forum video in Harper County, Kansas from June 21, 2012, which is VERY telling of just how dumbed-down Americans have become, and last but not least, visit our Patriot Coalition Channel at Livestream for videos from our press conference and NDAA briefings at the N.C. Legislature from May, 2012, the Kansas hearing on our NDAA resolution, and much more.

Jeff Lewis
National Director, FIRE Coalition
National Director, Patriot Coalition
Project Director, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER
EmailJeff@patriotcoalition.com
Phone: 252-876-9489
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog
FIRE Blog: http://blog.firecoalition.com
Patriot Coalition Blog: http://blog.patriotcoalition.com

Patriot Coalition LIVE! http://livestream.com/WRCG

Tags:

We the People are the Answer. That means YOU!

by PatriotWatchdog 24. June 2012 18:38

On Thursday, June 21, 2012, the Heartland Patriots hosted a candidate forum in Anthony, Kansas. From left to right in the video were: two candidates for Harper County Attorney, Janis Knox and Laurel McClellan, and five candidates for Harper County Sheriff including Les Ward, Jim Huff, Tracy Chance, Mike McAabee, and Don Evans. The bulk of the Q&A is in the last half hour of the forum.

Also in attendance was Richard D. Fry, a constitutional attorney from Olathe, Kansas and general counsel of the Patriot Coalition, a national group working to restore constitutional governance in America.

Among the candidates were several who had recently switched party affiliations to remain on the ballot for the August 07, 2012 elections. One suggested they had switched from Democrat to Republican because the GOP more closely reflected their values. However, despite being presented with information regarding the unconstitutional and indefinite detention of Americans without Constitutional protections embodied in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), NONE of the candidates acknowledged a duty to defend the Rights of the Citizens as defined in the Bill of Rights against unconstitutional abuses by the federal government. Note that the Democrat Party platform more closely reflects defending the Bill of Rights than that of the GOP, and more Dems voted against the 2012 and 2013 NDAA than did Republicans.

Our federal government, according to the Founder Fathers, was created to protect our God-given Inalienable Rights. (Read the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence).

Our nation’s woes are not a matter of left or right, but a matter of right and wrong.

Amongst all the candidates, there was a disturbing lack of understanding of the Constitution. A friendly lifeguard that can’t swim may wade into shallow water to warn you, but can’t save you from the rip tide.

For over 200 years the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Constitution was written for the common man.

Two of the sheriff candidates being prior military, acknowledged that the “battlefield” was under the control of the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief. On the battlefield, the “laws of war” apply not the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Both candidates for county attorney admitted they would never advise the sheriff to interfere with federal agents taking actions against the citizens of Harper County, and that the place to address these usurpations was at the voting booth. Paul Revere did not say come see me at the voting booth when the British were coming to deny Americans of their lives, liberties, and property.

We the People need to know the Constitution better ourselves, so that we can make better informed decisions when choosing, vetting, and electing public servants, whose prime duty is to defend our rights. That is what makes and keeps America free.

We have to be the “home of the brave to remain the land of the free.”

Jeff Lewis

National Director

Patriot Coalition

The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER

Phone: 252-876-9489

 

Tags:

Will N.C. Democrats Be Defenders of the Bill of Rights, or Will They Continue to Seem To?

by PatriotWatchdog 14. June 2012 14:27

According to our nation's founding documents, governments are formed to protect our God-given Inalienable Rights. In North Carolina, home of the 2012 DNC National Convention, a battle is raging over provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that violate over half the Bill of Rights.

Rep. Glen Bradley has introduced a resolution (H.R. 982) in the North Carolina General Assembly to oppose these abuses and to call on North Carolina's Congressional delegation to take action to repeal these encroachments on our rights, yet the Republican-led House refuses to hold hearings or allow a vote on the resolution.

Recently, the same Republican leadership rejected a similar resolution at the NC GOP state convention even though nearly two dozens N.C. counties had already adopted the resolution. If this is leadership, one has to ask where are they leading us?

Our state motto, "Esse Quam Videri" is etched in the granite walkway at the entrance to the N.C. Legislature. It means "To Be, Rather Than To Seem," although, in recent years, both political parties have walked on our state motto inside and outside the General Assembly building.

This weekend, the N.C. Democrat Party will hold its state convention. As cited in the below (and attached) proposed resolution, at least on paper, the Democrat Party "seems" to believe as we do, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights matter, that the abuses of a rogue federal government against those rights is intolerable. Will they "walk the walk" of their previously stated principles and convictions, or will they continue to abdicate their sworn duty to defend the Constitution?

I'm certain our Republican friends will not be happy that we are pointing out their failure/refusal to keep that oath. Some will suggest we are "helping the Dems," or "hurting good Republicans."

Well, the truth is the truth. The leadership of both major parties in North Carolina, (and across the country) are failing We the People, and the erosion of our Rights goes unabatted.

(DOWNLOAD BELOW RESOLUTION HERE)

RESOLUTION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

STANDING IN OPPOSITION TO PROVISIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 WHICH AUTHORIZE MILITARY DETENTION AND TRIAL OF U.S. CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENTS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION AND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

 

WHEREAS, “The 2008 Democratic National Platform,” Section IV states: 

 

  • “As we combat terrorism, we must not sacrifice the American values we are fighting to protect. In recent years, we’ve seen an Administration put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The Democratic Party rejects this dichotomy.”
  • “We reject torture.”
  • “We reject sweeping claims of “inherent” presidential power.”
  • “We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions…”
  • “We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law.”
  •  “We will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools to hunt down and take out terrorists without undermining our Constitution, our freedom, and our privacy.”
  • “We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”

 

  • “We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court.”
  • “We recognize what leaders on the front lines of the struggle against terrorism have long known: to win this fight, we must maintain the moral high ground.”
  • “Our Constitution is not a nuisance.”
  • “The Democratic Party will restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return our Nation to our best traditions–including our commitment to government by law.”

 

WHEREAS, “The 2008-2009 North Carolina Democratic Party Platform” states:

 

·       “This Party fully supports the sanctity of the Bill of Rights…

·       We support the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We oppose efforts to limit or eliminate these fundamental constitutional rights. We believe that all persons should have access to our courts.

·       We affirm efforts to defend our nation and State against terrorism and ensure that national security can and should be undertaken while preserving the civil rights and liberties of North Carolina residents.

WHEREAS, the 2012 NDAA contains numerous provisions repugnant to, and destructive of, the constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, and of this state.

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state are infringed and/or usurped by provisions in the NDAA which authorize the application of military force (including assassination), indefinite military detention without trial and allows military trial and rendition to foreign countries and entities, upon any person, including American citizens and lawful resident aliens, at the discretion of the President.

WHEREAS, the support in any way of a law considered unconstitutional is inconsistent with any public servant’s oath to support the U.S. Constitution.

WHEREAS, the citizens of this state are entitled to protection under the Constitution of the United States, anywhere in the world.

WHEREAS, a federal judge has ruled that section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA is unconstitutional.

WHEREAS, the United States is not a “battlefield,” and even if it were, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

WHEREAS, despite the 2012 North Carolina GOP Convention rejection of a similar NDAA resolution and Republicans blocking a vote on H.R. 982 in the N.C. General Assembly, we must stand firm in our defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

THEREFORE, it is resolved that the North Carolina Democratic Party rejects all unconstitutional parts of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), and in particular, regarding this resolution, sections 1021 and 1022,  and demands the Legislature and governor of this state by resolution direct this state’s Congressional delegation to immediately commence efforts to repeal aforementioned sections, which are repugnant to the sovereign rights of the citizens of this state and are usurpations of authority by the federal government.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Legislature and Governor of this state are directed, in pursuance of their oaths of office, and their duty to protect the Constitution, to enact laws prohibiting any official, employee, agent, or citizen of this state, or any other person, or of any of its subdivisions, from aiding, abetting, assisting, enforcing, or in any way supporting any official, employee, or agent of the United States Government, including any of its military forces or paramilitary forces under its direction or control, from enforcing or applying  sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, or any part thereof, against any person within this state, including citizens and lawful resident aliens, including by “capturing” or “arresting” such individuals, and establishing that all who violate such law be subject to criminal penalties,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Legislature and Governor of this state are directed, in pursuance of their oaths of office, and their duty to protect the Constitution, to enact laws prohibiting any official, employee, or agent of the United States Government, including any of its military forces or paramilitary forces under its direction or control, or that of any foreign military or foreign entity from enforcing or applying  sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, or any part thereof, against any person within this state including citizens and lawful resident  aliens, including by “capturing” or “arresting” such individuals, and establishing that all who violate such laws be subject to criminal penalties.

 

REFERENCES AND SOURCE DOCUMENTS 

North Carolina Democratic Party Platform

http://ncdems.3cdn.net/025e14b7537f7899d4_pzm6bx8ko.pdf

P.C.O.K. NDAA RESOLUTION FOR NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATORS

http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/NDAA-NC-RES.pdf

P.C.O.K. (FULL VERSION) NDAA SHERIFF RESOLUTION

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ndaa/ndaa-docs/NDAA-SHERIFF-RES.PDF

P.C.O.K. (SHORT VERSION) NDAA SHERIFF RESOLUTION

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ndaa/ndaa-docs/NDAA-SHERIFF-SRES.PDF

HR1540 Conference Report as Approved by the United States Congress

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf

Alternate source: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/HR1540conf.pdf

Authorization of Use of Military Force (See bottom of page 6 for final version as signed into law.)

http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Authorization-of-Use-of-Military-Force.pdf

President Obama’s Signing Statement: Dec. 31, 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Declaration of Independence: (See Freedom Documents tab)

http://nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Constitution of the United States of America: (See Freedom Documents tab)

http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Constitution of the Great State of North Carolina

http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/NC-Constitution.pdf

House Voting Record for final version of 2012 NADA

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Senate Voting Record for final version of 2012 NADA

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

2012 NDAA, SECTIONS: 1021, 1022,1023

http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/NDAA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (1021-1022-1023).doc

Video explanation of state resolution by Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry

http://livestream.com/WRCG (See: NDAA State Resolution)

H.R. 982, A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN 2012 NDAA

http://theintolerableacts.org/docs/H982v0-NDAA.pdf

NDAA-RESOLUTION-NC-DEMOCRAT-PARTY.pdf (330.68 kb)

Tags:

CPAC Chicago: Does ACU Represent Conservative Principles Anymore?

by PatriotWatchdog 12. June 2012 17:49

This past Friday, June 08, 2012, the American Conservative Union (ACU) hosted their second regional Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Chicago, Illinois. The list of speakers was a virtual who's who in Republican politics including sitting Members of Congress, former GOP presidential contenders, and a wide range of alleged conservative NGO's.

Members of the Patriot Coalition national and Illinois leadership attended along with roughly 2,000 other "conservatives." I have to put that term in quotes because I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean these days.

If you attended CPAC Chicago, visit the ACU's Statement of Principles, and then ask yourself what I feel compelled to ask: Has the ACU lost its way? The total lack of discussion of the 2012 NDAA and other usurpations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights avoided at CPAC Chicago certainly raises serious questions about who and what they represent these days.

(From the ACU's Statement of Principles):

•  We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the best political charter yet created by men for governing themselves. It is our belief that the Constitution is designed to guarantee the free exercise of the inherent rights of the individual through strictly limiting the power of government.

•  We reaffirm our belief in the Declaration of Independence, and in particular the belief that our inherent rights are endowed by the Creator. We further believe that our liberties can remain secure only if government is so limited that it cannot infringe upon those rights.  

•  We believe that it is the responsibility of the individual citizen, whenever his inherent rights are threatened from within or without, to join together with other individuals to protect these rights, or, when they have been temporarily lost, to regain them.

This is good stuff, right? On paper, yes. Were the above principles exampled by word and deed this past Friday at CPAC Chicago by the ACU and its invited guest speakers? Absolutely NOT!

The 2012 NDAA eviscerates no fewer than 14 provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including over half the Bill of Rights, along with violating provisions of all 50 state constitutions, yet not one speaker, nor one NGO/vendor at the event connected the acronym N-D-A-A into a complete sentence, let alone warned about the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and other persons by the U.S. military without charge, without trial, without access to an attorney, possibly for the rest of their lives, simply on the approval of the president. No one discussed the outrageous claim that America is a "battlefield," or whether such a designation would place the Constitution on a shelf with our Bill of Rights overridden by the "laws of war." There was no discussion of which "laws of war" the government is referring to in the NDAA. Are they talking about the internationally-recognized laws of war as embodied in the Geneva Conventions, or simply the U.S. Law of War Handbook, parts of which are inconsistent with international treaties AND the U.S. Constitution.

Nothing was mentioned about the 4th Amendment violations embodied in the Patriot Act, or the fact that President Obama has already assassinated at least four U.S. Citizens without ANY 'due process' protections guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The probable GOP-nominee for president, Mitt Romney, also had a booth at CPAC-Chicago. In the South Carolina debate, Governor Romney, (to boos and hisses from the crowd) acknowledged that he, as president, would have also signed the 2012 NDAA into law.

As I approached the Romney booth, a staffer/volunteer asked if I wanted to volunteer to "help Mitt." My answer was "No." I'm here to see if Gov. Romney will "help me" defend and restore the Bill of Rights. This spawned a puzzled/concerned look followed by the inevitable question, "Who are you?"

I responded by handing the nice lady my card and informing her that I could not vote for anyone that openly advocated violating over half the Bill of Rights, and that I would not / could not, with a clear conscience, advise our tens of thousands of members and partners to vote for a man who gives a shoulder shrug to defending our God-given Rights, and that Governor Romney had some explaining to do.

In a post-debate town hall gathering, Governor Romney reaffirmed his position, but offered that he would research it further and post his formal position on his campaign site. That was five months ago. As on June 12, 2012 NOTHING on the Romney site addresses the NDAA, abuses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights contained therein, nothing about the Constitution itself, or any guidance on his commitment to defend our "inalienable" Rights.

One would think Governor Romney knows the definition of "inalienable." As a professed religious man, you would think he would understand that "inalienable Rights" are not granted by government, but by our Creator, and that neither we, nor the governments we ordain have the moral, constitutional, or legal authority to take them away.

Most of the NGO/vendors at the conference had little or nothing to say about the NDAA, and none had any literature or were sounding the proverbial alarms of such aggregious abuses by a rogue federal government embodied in sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA. Nothing. Nada.

Which brings me back to my core observations at this most prestigious "alleged conservative" conference, hosted by an organization acknowledges "it does know better" in its own statement of principles.

Does the ACU and CPAC truly represent "conservative principles" anymore, or are they, and the NGO's that support it, simply carrying the water of the GOP machine inside the Beltway?

Although it has not been confirmed yet, were Congressmen Justin Amash and Ron Paul unwelcome at CPAC - Chicago? Arguably, had either spoken they would have drawn attention to usurpations against the Constitution that other speakers (Members of Congress) had actually voted for. Regardless of the reasons for their absence, the fact that they were not there, and did not speak, left me feeling that the speakers and participants of CPAC either did not care about the "conservative principles" espoused by the American Conservative Union, or did not care to use the opportunity to educate 2,000 conservative attendees, the media, etc...

Where was Paul Revere warning that the globalists were coming? Where was Thomas Jefferson "informing their discretion through education?" Heart-warming speeches by politicians may have made the attendees feel they got their money's worth, but the Republic suffers serious damage when alleged "champions of conservative principles" fail to champion the conservative principles many of them have sworn an oath to defend.

An ACU advertisement on their homepage appeals to prospective members with the following pitch: "Become a card-carrying conservative today!"

If what I witnessed at CPAC - Chicago is indicative of the courage to adhere to the principles of the ACU, I'll have to pass. The Constitution and our God-given Inalienable Rights had no voice. I kept looking for the proverbial Chicago beat-cop stepping over the body on the sidewalk, symbolizing our trampled Constitution, saying, "Move along folks. Nothing to see here."

Does the ACU represent conservative principles anymore? Decide for yourselves.

Let us hope the ACU, its speakers, and NGO supporters will revisit their principles, and help our nation restore constitutional governance to our once great Republic. We must "secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves, and our Posterity."

Jeff Lewis

National Director, FIRE Coalition
National Director, Patriot Coalition
Project Director, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER
EmailJeff@patriotcoalition.com
Phone: 252-876-9489
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog
FIRE Blog: http://blog.firecoalition.com
Patriot Coalition Blog: http://blog.patriotcoalition.com

Patriot Coalition LIVE! http://livestream.com/WRCG

The Intolerable Acts LIVE! http://livestream.com/theintolerableacts

Tags:

NDAA WEEDS & UNDER THE AGENDA 21 ROCKS

by PatriotWatchdog 24. May 2012 01:58
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
NDAA & AGENDA 21 PRESENTATION
for
North Carolina General Assembly
(PUBLIC WELCOME & ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND)

Wednesday, May 30, 2012
4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Room 544 - Legislative Office Building
300 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27603-5925


LIVE BROADCAST AT HTTP://LIVESTREAM.COM/theintolerableacts

Mr. Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers,  will be speaking about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) along with Jeff Lewis, co-founder and National Director of the Patriot Coalition, and Rep. Glen Bradley, sponsor of H.R. 982 & H.R. 983.

Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Lewis, along with Patriot Coalition General Counsel Richard D. Fry, co-authored model NDAA resolutions that have been introduced and/or adopted by sheriffs, other law enforcement, county commissions, and state legislators across the country.

Legislators need accurate, honest information to make informed decisions regarding We the People's business. Provisions in the 2012 & 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) violate no fewer than 14 provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including over half the Bill of Rights, and many more provisions of the North Carolina Constitution and Declaration of Rights.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT REP. GLEN BRADLEY BELOW,
OR JEFF LEWIS AT 252-876-9489, EMAIL: JEFF@PATRIOTCOALITION.COM
END PRESS RELEASE

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

H982v0-NDAA.pdf (120.80 kb)

H983v0-ICLEI-AGENDA-21.pdf (13.11 kb)

NDAA-RESOLUTION-NC-DEMOCRAT-PARTY.pdf (359.18 kb)

NDAA-RESOLUTION-NC-REPUBLICAN-PARTY.pdf (363.98 kb)

NDAA-SHERIFF-RES.pdf (249.79 kb)

Hedges-v-Obama-exerpts.pdf (419.90 kb)

Tags:

Meet Patriot Coalition's New Georgia Director Patrick Daron

by PatriotWatchdog 31. March 2012 01:03

Meet our new Georgia Director, Pat Daron and his wife Suzanne. The Daron's are an intelligent, articulate couple of patriotic Americans deeply concerned about the "Blessings of Liberty" they are supposed to be ensuring for their Posterity. They are deeply worried that instead of the "Blessings of Liberty," that their children and grandchildren will only know the "Curses of Tyranny."

Pat and Suzanne find that scenario to be not only unacceptable, but intolerable, and have joined the Patriot Coalition leadership as Georgia Director / Deputy Director. (Which one wears which hat matters not. They are a team, and our compatriots in the struggle to restore Constitutional governance in America.)

Below are examples of Pat and Suzanne's engagement on the issues with their "public servants," how they did so, and how you (their fellow countrymen) can learn in short order to do the same. If you're in Georgia, and care about your Posterity's future, I encourage you to get involved. Do your civic duty while you still have a choice in our nation's future.   -Jeff Lewis, National Director, Patriot Coalition

FROM PATRIOT COALITION GEORGIA DIRECTOR PAT DARON:

Writing in Federalist 57 in 1788, James Madison was addressing the question of what would restrain the House of Representatives (legislators) from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and oppressing the people. In reflecting on this potential tyranny, Madison writes “and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America—a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.” Further he writes  “If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty!”

Madison meant this: Then, as today, Our Legislators swear a solemn Oath of Office to support and defend Our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that they do this of their free will, “So help Me God”. Any law enacted that violates the Constitution and their solemn Oath to We The People, according to Madison’s view, will be met in kind with that “vigilant and manly spirit which ACTUATES the people of America”. The result:  Liberty is preserved and the tyrannical Legislator(s) is replaced as a matter of ROUTINE! Madison and the other Founders bet their lives, fortunes and sacred honors on us to do the right things to protect our unalienable rights, just as they had done for all future generations. We have, to date, failed them.

Two questions:

1.       Where is that vigilance and manly spirit in the American people? Look at this mailing list versus what we have sent out in the past. Six People  responded and said “Yes, we would like to see your take on this NDAA thing”.  Some of you may not read this to conclusion. There is a dearth of this vigilance, and we are in trouble. We’ll get to the NDAA in a minute; it’s the symptom, not the problem.

2.       How often do we replace these tyrannical legislators? Virtually never. We re-elect these career criminals as a matter of course. Why? See #1!

Our Constitution is under attack and compromised daily by the very people who swore to PROTECT IT AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. And that Constitution is not “our inherent right”. Our Constitution is a vigilant and active responsibility, and because most of us treat it as the former and don’t ACT on the latter the people ARE tolerating anything but Liberty! Which bring us to:

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012,  an incomprehensible bill of 1844 pages. While mostly good in that it deals with funding our military (big fans!), pay raises for our fine men and women in uniform, helps with the Wounded Warrior Project, etc, buried in it are seven short pages that should rock you to your core.

Section 1021 and 1022, less than 1/3rd of 1% of the bill, contain no less than 14 direct violations of our Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Specifically, these assaults  affect:

Article I, Section 9:          Suspension Clause

Article III, Section 2:        Grand Jury Indictment

Article III, Section 3:        Treason

Article IV, Section 4:       Republican Government

4th Amendment:               Secure in Person and Papers

5th Amendment:               Due Process

6th Amendment:               Speedy Trial

8th Amendment:               Cruel & Unusual Punishment

9th Amendment:               Rights of the People

10th Amendment:             State’s Rights

14th Amendment:             Equal Protection

In general, this law extends the battlefield to American soil, makes  it legal for the US Military to arrest and detain US Citizens indefinitely, without Due Process, no Habeas Corpus, no attorney, no jury trial and other major violations of your rights as a Citizen protected under The Constitution. These 7 little pages are how tyranny works: Legislators hiding this garbage in the cloak of a patriotic  defense funding bill is as heinous an act as we could imagine. These violations of the Constitution are not our opinion, although after our review with some well educated and highly involved Civil and Military lawyers, we wholeheartedly agree with their assessment. This cannot and will not stand for Our Family.

There is hope, but it needs your help. Rep. Ron Paul has introduced a  ONE PAGE  piece of legislation, H.R. 3785, to repeal Section 1021. We have asked our Georgia Representatives (see attached) to support H.R.3785 and introduce their own legislation to do the same to Section 1022. In addition, some State and Local Government (including Kansas, Eric) are enacting legislation based on State Sovereignty to nullify and make it illegal for the Federal  Government to act on Sections 1021/1022 in their States. We have contacted our State Senator and Representative accordingly. We encourage you to do your own researchwww.theintolerableacts.org  is a good place to start.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?  How about a little vigilance? Act. Write your officials: Federal, State and Local. Follow up with them. Meet with them. As an example, we asked to meet with Congressman Gingrey, but this spineless weasel wants nothing to do with Suzanne after her verbal beat down of this idiot at one of his Townhall Meetings. So, we have vetted his two primary opponents via phone and email. We met with someone who shares our values and commitments, and are now working with the campaign of a true Constitutionalist named Michael Opitz. If you are in District 11, go to www.opitzforcongress.org.  We are very hopeful  Mr. Gingrey will be going back to private practice after November. And by all means, if we can help let us know. This problem is bigger than any one district, man, or campaign. We are now in the process of vetting Rep. Tom Graves, another pseudo-conservative currently in District #9 but running unopposed in our new Georgia District #14.

NOTE:  You can get a copy of the new redistricted Georgia State and Federal maps by going to the Secretary of State’s Office at www.sos.ga.gov.

As you can see, this review took a little while. We have research files approximately 18”tall  supporting our review of the NDAA. We will finish our review of the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order next week.

As Jefferson said, “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, STAND LIKE A ROCK.”  This is such a time.  Please help Your Country, be that ROCK. We can get this done together. Whatever your choice, we thank you for your consideration. God Bless You All.  -Pat Daron, Georgia Director, Patriot Coalition

*  *  *  *  *  *

(I also asked Pat to put to paper what and how he and Suzanne become "informed" citizens, and how their fact-finding process works. We are sharing this as part of our efforts to "teach folks how to fish," as the Bible advises. Letters they've drafted and sent to various "public servants in their political food chain are attached to this article for your consideration -Jeff)

MORE FROM PATRIOT COALITION GEORGIA DIRECTOR PAT DARON:

The example we discussed last night: Yesterday morning we found out that through the redistricting process , we were “moving” from Georgia Congressional District #11 to new Georgia District #14 (we literally sit 20 feet inside the new lines!).  Congressman Tom Graves,  the incumbent in “soon to go bye-bye” District #9 is the ONLY person running for new D#14. We knew very little of Mr. Graves so to get up to speed, as is our Constitutional RESPONSIBILITY,  we took 5 minutes and reviewed his website (Googled it—they are PUBLIC SERVANTS—the info is there).

Mr. Graves portrays himself as a Conservative with strict “Constitutionalist Principles”, and deep Tea Party roots. One of the cornerstones of his website is his 5 Way Conservative Test, a tool he uses to evaluate his “legislating”. Here it is:  “And using this five way test will allow me to support legislation that is Constitutional and puts our conservative Georgia principles before politics.” – U.S. Rep Tom Graves. WOW, good start Tom, sounds really nice and simpatico. The 5 criteria are:

1.       Adherence to the Constitution  (uh-huh, key, we’re tracking)

2.       Lessens the tax burden  (check)

3.       Reduces the size of government (desirable)

4.       Promotes personal responsibility  (great, less assistance, more work)

5.       Promotes liberty and justice for all  (curious that this one is listed last, but OK)

So how do Mr. Graves ACTIONS square against his noble rhetoric: In the next five minutes, using H.R.347 (FRBGI Act) and H.R. 1540 (NDAA) as the litmus, we found he VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOTH!!!

That tells us a couple of things. Mr. Graves is probably a paper conservative and wannabe career politician—his website bio supports this “theory”. He also, through uneducated innocent mistakes OR purposeful deceit, took action that voids virtually everything in his stated core belief system. Since this is our first dealing with “Constitutionalist Graves”, we hope it is the former. However, neither is acceptable!

BUT HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS EQUATION: We don’t stop at this assumption! We immediately asked him, in letter form, to square these votes against his rhetoric and most importantly his solemn Oath of Office which we consider his sacred trust to us as HIS EMPLOYERS. Jeff, you have a copy of this letter. In its contents, you will see that we have given him an opportunity to right these wrongs, offered our help and support, and taken away any excuse he could use to not contact us. We do this constantly and consistently with all of our employees (PUBLIC servants) up to and including Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder (latest to AG Holder attached). Our Constitution is an active and vigilant responsibility.  James Madison spoke in Federalist 57 of “the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it.” It is not a passive inherent right. The latter is how we got in this state of affairs, and only through a big bunch of us returning to the former will we get this back.

 Mr. Graves will receive a brief diplomatic window of time to respond accordingly, and if he does not we will descend on his office and staff, and immediately begin a search for his replacement. This is exactly what we have done with Mr. Gingrey (our current D#11 Rep), who God Willing will be replaced in this election with a TRUE Constitutionalist Mr. Michael Opitz. ( for those of you in Georgia: www.opitzforcongress.org). 

 We felt it important to first review the “WHY”  because without that attitude and approach relative to Our Constitution, the “HOW” will not matter. Having said that, here’s our “HOW”:

 In any search, it helps to have the legislation number and title before you start. We use six primary sources to verify actions:

1.       www.thomas.loc.gov

2.       www.senate.gov

3.       www.house.gov

4.       www.govtrack.us

5.       www.opencongress.org

6.       www.thatsmycongress.org

Tired of reading?:  STOP HERE,  jump in to these six and start getting after it!!!!

 For those who want more detail, here is a brief take on each and how we use them:

 1.       www.thomas.loc.gov : this is the actual Library of Congress record. You can access info here from a lot of different angles. We usually start in the third menu item: Bills and Resolutions. But you can go from name, bill number, etc. This site also contains, directly underneath the upper left hand menu, the next two sites, such that if you want to directly access the Senate or House separate official records from Thomas you can.

 2.       www.senate.gov : official record of the Senate. Menu on the left and multiple ways to access. It is easier to access specifics about your particular Senator and voting record here than to wade through Thomas (#1 above).

 3.       www.house.gov : official record of the House. Same basic format as #2 above, with menu on the right. Again, easier than Thomas to find specifics of your Rep and their voting records.

 These first three are all government sites as the official records of Our Congress, and they come with the prerequisite pale benign of such. The next three are independent non-profit non-partisan sites with a WEALTH of information that the government sites do not go into, i.e. do not want us to know. This is where it gets fun:

 4.       www.govtrack.us : this site is the best for tracking legislation through the process. Great menu across the top. We use the “Committee” window a lot, as it gives a focus to what each committee is currently addressing and more importantly what they are not.

 5.       www.opencongress.org : great sort mechanism: by State/Name/Most Viewed/Most In News/Most Blogs/Approval. The Approval function is feedback on how the people who use this site approve/disapprove of their elected officials actions on legislation. You can guess the viewpoint of consistent  users of this site as the  Most Approved Top Three are: Ron Paul (92%), Adam Scott (80%-GO GEORGIA) and Justin Amish (78%). One other key feature: MONEY TRAIL. Shows where and from whom the money flows to each candidate—who they are/may be beholden to and lends perspective to why they may be voting the way they are. This “MONEY” feature combined with the Committee info from #4 above can sometimes blow your mind.

 6.       www.thatsmycongress.com : We have saved the best for last. BY FAR our favorite: “A politically independent journal of the campaigns and legislation of the United States Congress”.  In news journal form, this site recaps the issues of our days. When you click on any particular item, it will take you to a concise yet thorough recap. Usually imbedded in the text are legislation names and numbers with links to the specifics, as well as links to general votes and specific Legislator voting records. They also do a pretty good job of calling out the traitors to Liberty, whether collectives or individuals. As an example, there is currently onsite an account of H.R. 347 called “Vast Majority of US House Votes to Criminalize Protest”. Worth the read. There is also an account of a vote on H.R. 4192 Due Process and Military Detention Amendments Act (What is in a name?!?! Is this conundrum, oxymoron, stupidity,  or C.: All of the above.).

The independent sites have simple registration processes to “get behind the curtain”. There is no lack of immediate and factual information on our elected officials. In spite of the length of this writing, it literally takes minutes to discern who is DOING what, when, and generally why.

One final point from our perspective: the information is there—easy and available. In less than fifteen minutes yesterday, we went from finding out we had a new House Rep we knew nothing about, to analyzing his recent voting record and determining his actions do not square with his words. We then took ACTION: One hour later he had a letter in his office asking him to JUSTIFY those assaults on OUR LIBERTY. It’s like Ron White says when you are facing a tornado: it is not that the wind is blowing, it is WHAT  the wind is blowing. If we take this information and just talk to our comfort zone of friends and network—that is just the wind blowing. But if we ACCEPT and ACT on our God Given responsibility to protect Liberty in the form of Our Constitution then those accountable will feel WHAT THE WIND IS BLOWING!  That wind is the Patriotism and Love of Country our Founders provided all of us through this one seminal document. Only action on this Wind of Providence will matter. Act, We The People, Act.

RECENT LETTERS SENT TO GEORGIA FEDERAL AND STATE PUBLIC SERVANTS

Dear Senator Heath and Representative Braddock.pdf (257.29 kb)

NDAA-Senate.pdf (180.83 kb)

NDAA-Graves.pdf (337.49 kb)

NDAA-Gingrey.pdf (257.81 kb)

In Liberty,

Patrick & Suzanne Daron

Founders & Christian American Citizens

NEVER AGAIN

Georgia Director, Patriot Coalition

GAPatriot@PatriotCoalition.com

 

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void”  

 --John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1803, Marbury v. Madison

 

Tags:

NDAA and NDRP WEBINARS -MARCH 21-22, 2012

by PatriotWatchdog 19. March 2012 03:45

 
THE INTOLERABLE ACTS ACTION CENTER
WEBINAR / CONFERENCE CALL / LIVESTREAM BROADCAST

IMPORTANT UPDATE: DUE TO OVERWHELMING INTEREST IN OUR NDRP AND NDAA WEBINARS, WE ARE EXPECTING AN OVERFLOW OF FOLKS WANTING TO ATTEND. ACCESS TO THE WEBINAR IS ON A FIRST COME BASIS. FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT GET INTO THE WEBINARS, WE WILL ALSO BE LIVE BROADCASTING ON OUR  
We were under attack both nights, so the beginning is chaos.Skip past the first 20 minutes or so, and you'll get to the TRUTH ABOUT THE NDAA like you'll find nowhere else!
PATRIOT COALITION LIVE! CHANNEL, "WE THE PEOPLE, RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE"
ARCHIVED FOOTAGE OF THE BELOW EVENTS
WILL BE ON THE PATRIOT COALITION LIVE CHANNEL HERE SOON:
http://livestream.com/WRCG



NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS (NDRP)
PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER
(click here)
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
6:00 p.m. PACIFIC
7:00p.m. MOUNTAIN
8:00p.m. CENTRAL
9:00 p.m. EASTERN
(approximately 1 hour)

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT (NDAA)
Thursday, March 22, 2012
6:00 p.m. PACIFIC
7:00p.m. MOUNTAIN
8:00p.m. CENTRAL
9:00 p.m. EASTERN
(approximately 1 hour)

JOIN WEBINAR HERE:

JOIN CONFERENCE CALL HERE:
Dial: (559)546-1200
Enter the Meeting ID: 115-276-577
followed by the # key.


VIEW LIVE BROADCAST OF WEBINAR AND CHAT HERE:
Patriot Coalition LIVE! : http://livestream.com/WRCG
(Both webinars will also be archived for sharing/later viewing)

THE INTOLERABLE ACTS ACTION CENTER
A Patriot Coalition / Oath Keepers Project
"Defending Liberty is the Pursuit of Happiness!"

Solutions@TheIntolerableActs.org

Tags:

New American- Coalition of Patriot Groups Unite to Oppose NDAA

by PatriotWatchdog 17. February 2012 03:21

Coalition of Patriot Groups Unite to Oppose NDAA

Written by Joe Wolverton, II   New American Magazine
Tuesday, 14 February 2012 10:04

The Intolerable Acts was the name used by American colonists to describe a series of oppressive measures passed by the British Parliament in 1774 relating to the amount of self-government permissible in the American colonies. The acts sparked outrage and firm resistance to the tyrannical regime of King George III throughout the 13 colonies. These arbitrary violations of the rights of the colonists — rights enjoyed by all Englishmen — resulted in the convening of the First Continental Congress in order to organize a formal denouncement of the decrees and to unite the Americans in their resistance to the Crown. Despite various attempts by several delegates to reconcile with Britain, independence was declared within two years and the American War for Independence raged until liberty was achieved in 1783.

 
Lately, the government of the United States of America has been passing measures masquerading as laws that are easily as arbitrary and deleterious of freedom as any of the coercive measures passed by the despotic regime of the British Empire that caused our ancestors to take up arms and reassert their freedoms. The latest and perhaps most egregious of these is the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).
 
President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law on New Year’s Eve 2011, granting himself absolute power to deploy the armed forces of the United States to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected (by him) of being "belligerents." 
 
With the President's signing of this act, the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.
 
If the foregoing description isn’t sufficient evidence of the similarities between the autocratic acts passed in the 18th-century English Parliament and those passed by our own 21st-century Congress, further proof is found in the coalition of patriot organizations (including The John Birch Society, among others) uniting to call upon states to nullify these measures in the several state legislatures.
 
Toward that noble aim, these groups, under the direction of the Patriot Coalition and the Oath Keepers, have created a website that serves as both an educational portal and a repository of sample nullifying resolutions.
 
In a statement posted on the website explaining why the NDAA merits special attention from friends of freedom, the Patriot Coalition/Oath Keepers declared:
 
Our legal team has spent hundreds of hours developing the most detailed and in-depth NDAA resolutions for state legislators you will find anywhere. There are also resolutions for county sheriffs, and others in the works for other state and local governments, veteran service organizations, grassroots organizations, and more. In the coming weeks and months, "The Intolerable Acts" legal team will also produce and distribute model resolutions and legislation related to the entire spectrum of "intolerable and coercive acts" passed since 9/11/2001.
 
Senator Lindsey Graham is not alone in his belief that Miranda and due process should be waived because in his words, America IS the battlefield! He should read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the U.S. Constitution. Watch the videos below to hear Senator Graham in his own words. Rather than destroy the Constitution, how about we end the VISA Waiver Program that allows foreigners to just waltz in, virtually unannounced? The VISA Waiver Program should be suspended at the very least until "the end of hostilities" since, according to Senator Graham (and others) we "are at war." Hmm... where's that declaration of war? Oh... don't have one. Still leaning on an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress approved to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11/2001? Is this Groundhog Day, in which every day is 9/12/2001?
 
In a demonstration of historic awareness of the urgency of the constitutional crisis we are experiencing, the website is appropriately named theintolerableacts.org. In an interview with The New American, Richard Fry, the general counsel for the Patriot Coalition, explained the impetus behind this unique and constitutionally sound approach to defeating these latest acts of absolutism: “The federal attempts to fight the NDAA just do not get the job done. Most of the congressional proposals toward that end are nothing more than controlled opposition,” said Fry.
 
To their credit, the groups supporting the efforts of theintolerableacts.org are seeing success spreading through the nation.
 
As reported earlier, State Representative Charles Key of Oklahoma has introduced a resolution drafted by the legal team of the Patriot Coalition and the Oath Keepers, which includes Fry and Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers and a graduate of the Yale Law School. The bill officially requests that the U.S. Congress repeal Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Furthermore, the legal effect of those two sections would be void in Oklahoma.
 
In a statement released concurrent with the introduction of the resolution, Rep. Key wrote:
 
President Barack Obama has said he would not hold citizens indefinitely; it is deplorable that he would sign into law legislation that contains clauses that would authorize him to do just that. Oklahomans have taken notice of this repugnant new law and as state lawmakers it is our duty to apply pressure to Congress and the president to undo this debacle.
 
Fry indicates that the push in Oklahoma is only the beginning. He informed The New American that his group has a “commitment from State Representative Glen Bradley of North Carolina” to file a similar measure, as well as “serious interest” from state lawmakers in South Dakota.
 
Currently, the website offers anti-NDAA resolutions for state legislators and county commissioners in the following states:
 
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana 
Minnesota
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Utah
Virginia
 
The consortium of concerned patriotic partners behind theintolerableacts.org is not focusing solely on state assemblies, however. 
 
Sheriffs are provided with a sample resolution, as well. In that document, a participating county sheriff can express his view that
 
all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and will not be implemented, enforced, or otherwise supported in this county, and it is the express policy of the Sheriff that no officer, employee, or agent of the Sheriff’s Office may implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions including seizure, detention, or trial by the United States Armed Forces, and/or any other agents of the United States government, both foreign and domestic, of any person, including any United States citizen and/or lawful resident within this county, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and/or employment, and will subject them to discipline up to and including termination and potential arrest for assault, battery, kidnapping, unlawful detention, and other unconstitutional actions under the color of law.
 
According to Fry, renowned constitutionalist Sheriff Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), introduced the model sheriff’s NDAA resolution.
 
Americans zealous to protect their Republic and the Constitution that limits the power of the government thereof are advised to contact their county and state elected representatives to encourage them to review the model resolutions provided at theintolerableacts.org and to present them for consideration to the appropriate lawmaking body.

Tags:

PATRIOT COALITION & OATH KEEPERS PREPARE RESOLUTIONS TO EXPOSE NDAA

by PatriotWatchdog 27. January 2012 00:33

Patriot Coalition & Oath Keepers

Legal Teams Join Forces to Educate U.S. Citizenry

About "Intolerable Acts"

NDAA Resolutions

NDAA RESOLUTIONS FOR STATE LEGISLATORS

Colorado  Florida   Illinois  Kansas

Oklahoma  Pennsylvania  New York  North Carolina

NDAA SHERIFF RESOLUTION

NDAA-SHERIFF-RESOLUTION (detailed version)

NDAA-SHERIFF-RESOLUTION (abbreviated version)

NOTE from Patriot Coalition National Director Jeff Lewis & Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes:

The below draft resolution was prepared by Mr. Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers (oathkeepers.org) a Yale Law Graduate who specializes in the application of military law to civilians, and Mr. Richard D. Fry, a constitutional law attorney and General Council for Patriot Coalition (patriotcoalition.com).

Legislators who choose to endorse or adopt this (Patriot Coalition / Oath Keepers) “P.C./O.K. NDAA RESOLUTION” are requested to notify Stewart and Richard of your intent, and to identify it as such in any accompanying public statements or press releases.

We have also prepared a tutorial video which explains, clause by clause, the contents of this resolution, which can be viewed at the Patriot Coalition’s Livestream Channel here: http://livestream.com/WRCG. (See: NDAA State Resolution) If you have any questions, Stewart Rhodes can be reached at 702-353-0627 or by email at stewart.rhodes@oathkeepers.org, and Richard D. Fry can be reached at 816-853-8718 or by email at richard@patriotcoalition.com. Stewart and/or Richard would be happy to join you by telephone or by Skype. I can be reached at: 252-876-9489, or at: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com.

“…I am committed against every thing which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy [the Constitution]… and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the Government itself…”   -Daniel Webster

__________________

RESOLUTION OF THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE
STANDING IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 WHICH AUTHORIZE MILITARY DETENTION AND TRIAL OF U.S. CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENTS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE.


WHEREAS, on Dec. 15, 2011, on the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the United States Senate passed the Conference Report to House of Representative bill H.R. 1540, the "NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA),"

WHEREAS, on Dec. 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Conference Report to House of Representative Bill H.R. 1540, the NDAA, into law,

WHEREAS, the NDAA contains provisions repugnant to, and destructive of, the constitutions and Bill of Rights of the United States of America, and this state,

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state are infringed and/or usurped by provisions in the NDAA which authorize the application of: military force (including assassination), indefinite military detention without trial, military trial, and rendition to foreign countries and entities of any person, including American citizens and lawful resident aliens, at the discretion of the President or a subordinate within the Department of Defense,

Fundamental Rights of All U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens

“In matters of power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” 

- Thomas Jefferson

WHEREAS, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states:

“W E THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

WHEREAS, the Preamble to the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma declares:

"Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, to ordain and establish this Constitution,"

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-10, states:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended by the authorities of this State.”

WHEREAS, there has been no Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Congress, purporting to authorize detention without Grand Jury Indictment for such time as Congress has specified during a “Rebellion,” or an “Invasion.”

WHEREAS, instead of Suspending Habeas Corpus, Congress has unconstitutionally authorized indefinite military detention, under the “law of war,” of persons, including United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, a power nowhere granted to government within the United States Constitution,

WHEREAS, U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, states:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 states:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-16, Treason, states:

“Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article III, Section 3 together clearly and plainly set forth what manner of trial must be used against a United States Citizen or lawful resident who is alleged to have waged war against the United States or to have aided the enemy in wartime, requiring a trial by a jury of their peers, in an Article III, civilian court, for the crime of Treason, with the extra evidentiary burden of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court,

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the NDAA directly violates Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution by authorizing military trial, before a military commission, of American citizens and lawful residents accused of levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, which are the elements of the crime of treason as defined in Article III, Section 3, “levying war against [the United States] or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort…” thus denying United States citizens and lawful resident aliens their right to a trial by jury and also denying them the additional evidentiary protections of Article III, Section 3, such as the requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court before they can be found guilty, by a jury of their peers, of having levied war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, which constitute the crime of treason,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-30, Unreasonable searches or seizures - Warrants, issuance of, states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, describing as particularly as may be the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.”

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c) (1) of the NDAA, directly violates the right of the people against unreasonable seizure by allowing them to be snatched up (kidnapped) by the United States military, on the say so of the military itself, and taken to a military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to some other location, to be held in “(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” or, under Section 1021(c) (4) to be turned over to the custody or control of “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity,” all of which are the epitome of an unreasonable seizure, as the American people are thereby treated exactly the same as any person captured on a foreign battlefield (such as Iraq or Afghanistan), where anyone who is suspected of being an unlawful belligerent in the war on terrorism, or of aiding belligerents, is simply picked up by the military and taken away to wherever the U.S. military sees fit, with no involvement whatsoever by the civilian courts. A government which does the above to its own people is consistent with the behavior of every despotic and totalitarian regime in world history.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," (emphasis added)

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-7, DUE PROCESS OF LAW states:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis added)

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c) (1) of the NDAA, directly violates the 5th Amendment by authorizing United States citizens and lawful residents to be held in military detention ”under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” including holding them to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime – violations of the laws of war – and authorizing the initiation of military trial for those offenses without presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

WHEREAS, claiming authority under the laws of war and the AUMF, President Barack Obama has, on his direction alone, targeted U.S. citizens for killing by the U.S. military, and has in fact ordered the successful killing of several U.S. citizens, based on secret evidence, pursuant to a secret criteria for deciding such targeting, while refusing to present any evidence whatsoever, and while proclaiming the intent to target other U.S. citizens for such extra-judicial, extra-constitutional killing with no due process whatsoever before placing U.S. citizens on a secret assassination list, and depriving them of their lives without due process of law, directly in violation of the Fifth Amendment, all under the fiction that he can treat Americans like foreign enemy soldiers during war and simply kill them on sight.

Again, such a claimed power to arbitrarily kill its own citizens, on the mere say-so of “the Leader” is the hallmark of every despotic and totalitarian regime in world history. Under our Constitution, a citizen or lawful resident must be tried for treason and found guilty by a jury of his peers before being executed. Summary execution at the discretion of the President is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

WHEREAS, by enacting the NDAA, and thus affirming the power of the President to use military force against any person – including U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens - that “he determines” are part of the enemy or has aided the enemy in the “war on terror,” with the full knowledge that the current President has engaged in assassination of U.S. citizens, Congress has knowingly authorized the continuation of President Barack Obama’s program of extra-judicial killing of Americans who he has placed on his secret hit list, pursuant to secret evidence that he will not present to any court. Congress has thus given its assent to the President to hold the power of life and death over all persons within the United States, as if he were a Roman emperor, or as if he were Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Pol Pot, or Papa Doc.

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 6th Amendment states:

“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.”

WHEREAS, Section 1021(c)(2) of the NDAA directly violates the clear mandates of the 6th Amendment by authorizing United States citizens and lawful residents to be tried before a military commission “under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–4 84)), for supposed crimes against the “law of war,” rather than before a jury of their peers, and further violates the 6th Amendment by authorizing such trial outside of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, to include transporting them beyond seas for pretended offenses against the “law of war” (such as not bearing arms openly, not wearing a uniform or an insignia recognizable at a distance, or not serving under an established chain of command – all of which are absurd to apply to an American civilian in civilian life), and without the 6th Amendment guarantee of the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 8th Amendment states:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Bill of Rights, Article II, SECTION II-9 states:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.”

WHEREAS, the NDAA, in direct violation of the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, authorizes “cruel and unusual punishments” in the form of “indefinite detentions,” and the transfer of American citizens and lawful residents to “foreign nations,” and/or unnamed foreign “entities” for unspecified purposes, and for trial and punishment for pretend offenses against the “law of war,” which can result in the absurdity of Americans suffering the punishment of being executed because they do not wear an insignia recognizable at a distance in their daily lives as civilians, or because they carry a handgun concealed as millions of Americans legally do in daily life, or because they are not subject to an established chain of command, all of which are perfectly legal under the laws of the United States and are only “crimes” under the international “law of war” as applied to a foreign enemy, which has no jurisdiction over Americans who are not in the Armed Forces of the United States,

WHEREAS, the punishment of being arbitrarily killed by a Hellfire Missile fired from a Predator drone, after the President “determines” – based on secret evidence and secret criteria - that a U.S. citizen or lawful resident alien is guilty of levying war against the United States or aiding its enemies, or is guilty of pretend violations of the “law of war,” is truly cruel and unusual (at least for now), and thus violates the 8th Amendment,

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands …may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

-James Madison, Federalist 47

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1 states,

"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

Requirements of Oaths of Office to Protect the Constitution and U.S. Citizens

WHEREAS, our oath of office creates an active duty, not a passive duty,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 states,

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Constitution, SECTION XV-1 states:

“All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that I will not, knowingly, receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing, for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my office, other than the compensation allowed by law; I further swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as _________ to the best of my ability."

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 8 states:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

WHEREAS, enlisted members of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

WHEREAS, commissioned officers of the armed forces of the United States are bound by the following oath:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous [NDAA is 1844 pages] that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.”   - -James Madison

WHEREAS, the execution of parts of the NDAA may require members of the armed forces to violate their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,

WHEREAS, we believe the NDAA unconstitutionally infringes upon the fundamental rights of all persons, including U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens of our Constitutional Republic, as noted above, and has other flaws, as noted below:

1.  The NDAA is deceptive in that it purports to merely “Affirm” the authority granted the President under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as signed into law on September 18, 2001, when in fact, it does expand the temporal scope and the entities to whom that act applies, which can be targeted under the AUMF.
(See Subtitle D—Counterterrorism, SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE),

2.  The NDAA of 2012 is deceptive in that, while it purports to not expand or limit the authority given the President under the subject AUMF, or the scope of the subject AUMF, it does in fact expand both in the following ways:

a.  it expands the entities that could be targeted beyond those noted in the AUMF, and for a different time period (See §1021 (b)(2) “A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” (Emphasis added),

b.  it expands the powers of the President that can be applied to “covered persons” by enumerating for the first time, the power of indefinite military detention under the “law of war” without trial, trial by military commission, and extraordinary rendition to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
(See §1021(d) CONSTRUCTION.—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), (See note 1)

3. The NDAA is deceptive in that it purports it does not affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens et.al, when in fact:

a.  Congress could not agree on what the existing “law or authorities” were,

b. the NDAA does expand the entities and actions to which the AUMF applies,

c.  the provision of the NDAA will result in a different law being applied to “United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,” i.e., the “law of war,” (See Section 1021(e))

d. there are general provisions in the NDAA which purport to limit its application that are inconsistent with specific provisions in the NDAA that expand the AUMF. A court, in interpreting the NDAA, will most likely interpret the subject-limiting provision to read “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities… [except as otherwise provide in this section].”
(See §1021(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.), (See Note 2.)

e. the intent and purpose of the NDAA, as expressed by Senator Lindsey Graham on the Senate floor, is to create the legal fiction that the United States of America is a “battlefield,” thus providing justification for the unconstitutional application of the “law of war” to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens who are not serving in the U.S. armed forces,”

4. The NDAA is deceptive in that Section 1021 expands the authority of the 2001 AUMF, while asserting it does not expand the authority granted under the 2001 AUMF. Congress is pretending that it granted all of these newly listed powers in the 2001 AUMF, when in fact the original authorization makes no mention of the power to use military detention, military trial, or extraordinary rendition. This legalistic, sophistic, “time travelling” deception allows Congress to greatly expand the written scope of its AUMF, including adding, for the first time, written authorization to use military detention without trial, military trial, and even extraordinary rendition to foreign countries and unnamed foreign entities, to include against U.S. citizens and lawful residents, while telling the American people that nothing has changed. Such legalistic “time travel” is the height of deception.

WHEREAS, it is deceptive for the NDAA to assert it does not affect existing law or authorities in that: 1) there was no agreement within Congress as to what is the existing law on the relevant subject, 2) the “authorities“ on the subject issue are unclear at best, 3) provisions within Subtitle D of the NDAA do result in a different law, the “law of war,” being applied to “United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States…” outside the protections of civilian law pursuant to Article III and the Bill of Rights. 4) due to the fact there are general limiting provisions in the NDAA which are inconsistent with specific expanding provisions in the NDAA, a court, in interpreting the NDAA, will most likely interpret the general-limiting provisions to read “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities…except as otherwise provided in this section,” (See Section 1021(e)) (See Note 2.)

WHEREAS, the NDAA would subject United States citizens and lawful resident aliens to “transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity….”, which would violate the duty of allegiance owed to such persons by the United States of America as well as certain of their fundamental freedoms,

WHEREAS, the supporters of the NDAA have said the NDAA will have the effect, and we believe it will have the effect, of allowing the President to treat the United States of America as if it was a “battlefield,” placing it under the “law of war,” and its citizens as if they were foreign enemies on a foreign “battlefield” subjecting them to the “law of war” and martial law, exactly like the people of occupied Iraq and Afghanistan are treated,

WHEREAS, granting the President the authority he would have over a foreign “battlefield,” for use against the American people, is unconstitutional and a violation of the federal government’s duty of allegiance to protect U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens,

WHEREAS, as the NDAA contains deceptive language in that it misrepresents what it does and it uses vague and ambiguous terms, usurps the Constitution, and sets the stage for the acceleration of a long train of abuses of the American people and their fundamental rights,

WHEREAS, no law is enforceable save those which are consistent with the “unalienable rights” given to all men by God, as declared in the Declaration of Independence and acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution,

WHEREAS, the above noted injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states, are nearly identical to many of the long train of abuses and usurpations that compelled our forefathers to take up arms and to separate from Great Britain, as enumerated in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, of July 4, 1776:

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:”

“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences”

“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering  fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:”

“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.”

WHEREAS, the similarities to our current circumstances are both shocking and obvious, with
Congress and the President presuming to: affect the military independent of and superior to the civil
power; subjecting us to a jurisdiction – the “law of war” – foreign to our Constitution and
unacknowledged by our laws (with the Constitution being the supreme law of the land); depriving us of
trial by jury; claiming a power to transport us beyond Seas for indefinite detention without trial, for
rendition to foreign countries or entities, or to be tried for pretend offenses against the international “law of war;” taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government by claiming that the "law of war" trumps our Constitution and Bill of Rights; and declaring themselves vested with the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

By doing so, Congress and President Obama, just as with Parliament and King George before them, are abdicating government here by declaring us out of the Protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and waging War against us, under the international law of war, as if we were a foreign enemy people.

WHEREAS, “Any person having knowledge of any treasonable project is bound to disclose it to the President, or to a United States judge, or to a Governor of a State or a State judge, or he is guilty of misprision of treason, and may be fined one thousand dollars and imprisoned for seven years.” (Treatise on Law of the American Rebellion, page 20, Gard. Inst., 326; 1 U.S. St. L. 112, 119.)

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
For the above and forgoing reasons, this Legislature expresses its belief that the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person, including citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States not in the military forces, and over citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States, who are not in the military forces, anywhere in the world.

FURTHER, the Legislature expresses its sense that all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and are not enforceable in this state, and it is the express policy of state’s Legislature that no officer, employee, or agent of the state will implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and employment agreement, and will subject them to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

FURTHER, the Legislature recognizes its duty to interpose itself between unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government or its agents and the people of this state, as well as the duty to defend the unalienable natural rights of the people, all of which is consistent with the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and with our oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

FURTHER, the Legislature directs the Congressional delegation of this state to commence immediately efforts to repeal the unconstitutional sections of the NDAA, to-wit, sections 1021 and 1022, and any other section or provision which will have the same or substantially the same effect on the United States, its citizens, and lawful resident aliens.

FURTHER, the Legislature directs the Congressional delegation to introduce, support, and secure the passage of legislation which clearly states that Congress not only does not authorize, but in fact prohibits the use of military force, military detention, military trial, rendition, or any other power of the “law of war” against U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, within ten (10) days from the passage hereof, a certified copy of this resolution shall be mailed, via certified mail with a return receipt, to each and every member of this state’s Congressional delegation by the [whomever it's their responsibility to send such documents], and, in compliance with federal law regarding acts of "misprision of treason," (page 20, Gard. Inst., 326; 1 U.S. St. L. 112, 119.), to the governor and Supreme Court Chief Justice of this state to effect notification of a possible “conspiracy against the United States,” to wit: the attempt by Congress and the President to arbitrarily and indefinitely suspend of the Bill of Rights outside the requirement of an invasion or rebellion as required by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, which states: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.,” and by subjecting the American people to the “law of war,” including military force, detention, and trial, and/or the institution of martial law, rather than under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the detention and trial requirements of U.S. Constitution, Article III, and of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Legislature, recognizing its oath-bound duty to defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, to secure the people’s unalienable natural rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” as alliterated in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, adopts this resolution, this _______day of ___________, 2012.


NOTES

1.  Section 1021(d) CONSTRUCTION is meaningless for two reasons.

First, in construing a statute the law gives a preference to a specific provision over a general provision, especially if they are in apparent conflict. Section 1021(d), a general limiting provision, is in conflict with Section 1021(b)(2) a specific provision, which expands the temporal scope and entities covered. Section1021(b)(2), the specific provision also conflicts with Section 1021(a). The specific provision stands.

Second, the court is required to construe a law so that all its provisions are given some meaning and that they are all consistent with each other if at all possible. Under this rule, a court would construe the general limiting provision to read (or mean):
“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 [unless otherwise expressed herein].”

As (b)(2) is expressed within the law it is consistent with the meaning of the limiting provision of 1021(d).
The courts assume that the laws are written by honest people who are trying to clearly convey their thoughts and purposes. They do not assume they are written by persons who are trying to trick or deceive the public by chicanery.

2.  Section 1021(d) and (e) are meaningless, and or useless, and likely have the opposite effect of what they represented they were trying to convey.

First, the proponents (Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) and the opponents (Senators Feinstein and Durbin) could not agree on what was the current law. Each side cited the same cases to support their respective positions. One side or the other was wrong, and as to that side, these provisions do no good.

Note that Section 1021(e) uses the term “capture” in contrast to “arrest.” This clearly indicates the bill anticipates the use of military custody. Generally, the military only has authority to take a person into “custody” if such person is subject to the “law of war,” such as a foreign enemy in wartime on a foreign battlefield (or is a member of the U.S. armed forces). Also, note the law presumes Congress knows the laws. So like subsection 1021(d), to the extent this provision specifically changes the “existing law,” that change will very likely stand.

In essence, what the NDAA accomplishes is applying a legal fiction to the United States that it is a “battlefield,” under the authority of the military, and under the “law of war.” Battlefields are under the authority of the military and under the “law of war.” As we know, if our house catches fire, the fire department will kick in our door and put out the fire. Due to the immediate emergency they will not get a court order or even ask your permission. What the NDAA does is declares everyone’s house is on fire. This is of course unconstitutional.

Even if the United States were a battlefield, such as during “Rebellion or Invasion,” the “law of war” still cannot be applied to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens. The constitutional emergency powers are: calling forth the militia, suspension of Habeas Corpus by Congress, and jury trial for treason, in accordance with Article III.

 

REFERENCES AND SOURCE DOCUMENTS

HR1540 Conference Report as Approved by the United States Congress
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf
Alternate source: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/HR1540conf.pdf

Authorization of Use of Military Force (See bottom of page 6 for final version as signed into law.) http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Authorization-of-Use-of-Military-Force.pdf

President Obama’s Signing Statement: Dec. 31, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Declaration of Independence: (See Freedom Documents tab)
http://nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Constitution of the United States of America: (See Freedom Documents tab)
http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Constitution of the State of Oklahoma
http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/AllOKConstitutionArticles-1.doc

House Voting Record for final version of 2012 NDAA
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Senate Voting Record for final version of 2012 NDAA
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

2012 NDAA, SECTIONS: 1021, 1022,1023
http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/NDAA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (1021-1022-1023).doc

Video explanation of state resolution by Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry
http://livestream.com/WRCG (See: NDAA State Resolution)

NDAA-OK-RES.pdf (622.20 kb)

NDAA-SHERIFF-RES.pdf (646.10 kb)

Tags:

About the PatriotWatchdog

Jeff Lewis is founder of PatriotWatchdog, co-founder and National Director of the Patriot Coalition, and National Director of the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition, aka FIRE Coalition.

As a four-time cancer survivor, and veteran of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Jeff knows personally a thing or two about defending life and liberty. There can be no honorable "pursuits of happiness" without defending our God-given inalienable rights, and there can be no honor without giving our "all" to preserve the Blessings of Liberty our Constitutional Republic provides.

According to members of the Deptartment of Homeland Security's Advisory Council on Countering Violent Extremism, Jeff is a "nativist extremist," and potential domestic terrorist. Of course, according to DHS, anyone who believes in the Constitution, limited government, and the Bill of Rights is a "right-wing extremist."

This descendent of American Revolutionaries took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Neither has an expiration date.

God Bless America, and those that defend Her!

Month List