Warrantless NSA Searches and Secret Courts

/in /by

When you think about the NSA warrant-less searches is just like an iceberg. There’s always more below the surface then what you see above the surface. For example did you know that the court that issued the warrant to Verizon was not even a court at all? And did you know that we have courts in this country that are not bound by the Constitution and that have been established for the sole purpose of circumventing the Constitution. Of course you’ve heard of it. It’s called the FISA court. Otherwise known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and it’s a secret court. Is that American? Is that Constitutional?

Alternatively you can listen to “Warrantless NSA Searches and Secret Courts” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

KrisAnne Hall Stands Up For Sherrif Nick Finch

/in /by

This week Liberty County Florida Sheriff, Nick Finch was arrested by Governor Rick Scott for standing in defense of the Constitution and honoring his oath of office. Sheriff Finch believes the Second Amendment means what it says, our Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What Sheriff Finch did was well within his authority and in full compliance with the rules and regulations for records retention and destruction. What Sheriff Finch did was stand in the gap where the government is trying to erode your Liberty.

Sheriff Finch made the decision to not pursue a charge against Floyd Parish; well within the authority of the Sheriff to do. Upon making that decision, Sheriff Finch removed Parish’s file from the records and removed his name from the jail log. Well within his authority; The General Records Schedule for Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and District Medical Examiners outlines this authority.

Should US Citizens Have Miranda Rights?

/in /by

In 2010 I gave the founder’s WARNING of this tyranny…yet their warnings are still not heard. Three years later we are still hearing the same demand that our Liberty must be suspended for security; that our Constitution is inadequate and needs to be “interpreted” to meet our current security needs. I am puzzled by the demand to “interpret” the Constitution. As a friend recently pointed out, the Constitution written in ENGLISH. Why does our government constantly demand its “interpretation”? I think it is just an indication of their illiteracy.

Elizabeth Warren: Federal prosecutors need to ‘‘find the right balance’’ in deciding whether to read Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights. [Too bad these aren’t ‘MIRANDA’ rights…they are your 5th & 6th AMENDMENT rights.]

Michael Bloomberg: “But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

3 years ago Eric Holder was demanding the same Constitutional heresy when Faisal Shahzad tried to blow up Times Square. I tried to share the Founders’ warnings then. Will YOU now help me give VOICE to the founders of this nation?

WE must share their warnings or repeat their mistakes and doom our children to tyranny!

By KrisAnne Hall – www.krisannehall.com

June 24th, 2010

In the infamous words of Rahm Emanauel, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” And we have had plenty recently. The danger is, with the rapid succession of each new catastrophe, we don’t stop long enough to identify the real issues. It becomes a huge shell game where the people’s attention is diverted from one situation to the next; and each crisis is never wasted. Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” According to Jefferson, we must not be distracted; we must be vigilant against every enemy of freedom.

One crisis that seems to have faded from public memory is the issue of Faisal Shahzad and his Miranda rights. Mr. Shahzad was the prime suspect in the May 1, 2010, Times Square car bomb attempt, to which he has reportedly confessed. To Mirandize or not to Mirandize that was the question. We could also ask it like this:

Should Every Citizen of the United States Be Afforded the Full Protection of the Constitution?

Attorney General EricHolder wants to make the requirement for Miranda more “flexible”. Although he did not elaborate, he did say he would seek to make an exception to Miranda “consistent with the public safety concerns that we now have in the 21st century as opposed to the public safety concerns that we had back in the 1980s.” Although the Supreme Court has clearly defined the ‘public safety’ exception, it appears that Mr. Holder believes that Congress should now broaden those standards.

Why is this important? Because the rights afforded by Miranda are rights that come directly from the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution. So cutting through the doublespeak – Mr Holder is saying that the Justice Department should have the power to suspend a citizen’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

The 5th Amendment, containing the clause protecting against Self-Incriminationis based on the idea that people cannot be forced to testify against themselves against their will. This principle did not become part of English law until the 1700s. Before then, people could be forced to testify against themselves, and this evidence was admissible in court, even if the evidence was obtained by torturing the witness. Coincidently, these tactics had been used primarily to extinguish any political or religious belief that differed from that of the Royal government.

The 6th Amendment also has roots in English law and in part provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, Parliament passed a law allowing people accused of treason, the right to be represented by an attorney at trial, but this right did not extend to any other classes of crime. By the time of the Revolutionary War, most believed that a person should have the right to hire an outside attorney or to even represent himself at trial, regardless of the charges.

The question that Mr. Holder wants to distract us with is, “Should Mr. Shahzad be afforded the same Constitutional rights as every other citizen of the United States?” Without hesitation the answer to that question should be a most emphatic YES! The truth is it is not the right question. Everycitizen should be afforded every Constitutional protection that our founding fathers and our brave military have bled and died for. It should not be up to the government to determine when and how the Constitution applies to its citizens. We must remember the reasons we have these rights.

Patrick Henry told us that “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government,” and George Washington furthered that thought by saying, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

We cannot allow the government to have that type of power. And we don’t have to when we open our eyes to the 800lb gorilla standing in the room. The problem is not the citizens having too many Constitutional rights…

The REAL Question is this: Should Mr. Shahzad Have Been Granted The Privilege of Being a Citizen of The United States in The First Place and Why Did He Retain This Privilege?

Mr. Shahzad was born in Pakistan. In December 1998 he was granted an F-1 student visa.In 1999 he was placed on a US Customs (later merged into DHS) travel lookout list called the “Traveler Enforcement Compliance System. (See CBS News Investigates, May 5, 2010) Between 1999 and 2008 Mr. Shahzad brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States. (See CBS Investigates, May 13, 2010)

In spite of being on this watch list, he was granted U.S. citizenship on April 17, 2009, due to his marriage to his wife.A few weeks later, he abruptly quit his job and stopped making payments on his house, defaulting on the $218,400 mortgage. After an 8 month stint in Pakistan, Shahzad came back to the U.S. in February 2010. There is no record he had any job since returning. Yet he drove an Isuzu and paid $1,150 per month to rent an apartment in Bridgeport, CT, never missing a payment. He clearly had plenty of cash. Shahzad slapped down $1,300 in $100 dollar bills to pay for the used SUV that was found smoking, rigged with explosives, in Times Square. A CBS News analysis estimates he spent at least $2,000 to make the bomb. He reportedly had at least one gun estimated to be worth $400. On Monday night when he tried to flee, he forked over an estimated $800 in cash to pay for a one-way ticket to Islamabad, Pakistan via Dubai, UAE. (See CBS Investigates, May 13, 2010)

Our failing is not in the Constitution, it is once again in the botched immigration policies and practices. Why isn’t Mr. Holder trying to work with Congress to make the immigration laws“consistent with the public safety concerns that we now have in the 21st century”, instead of trying to strip the citizens of their Constitutional protections. (Such an approach would certainly help the citizens of Southern Arizona.)

William Pitt said in 1783, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” I, for one, do not want the current “safety concerns” to determine the extent of my Constitutional rights. We must heed the warning of Benjamin Franklin when he said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety.”

Show Stalinesque

SHHH! The TRUTH about Syria…

/in /by

Why aren’t we being told the TRUTH about Syria? Why is this administration and those loyal to it, (McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor, etc.) pushing so hard for a war in Syria? Perhaps the FACTS will help us understand what is REALLY going on here. When you are done reviewing the TRUTH the government doesn’t want you to know, you can send this OPEN LETTER to your Senator and House Rep and demand NO ACTION in Syria!

Ready my “OPEN LETTER On Syria”

Nothing but the Facts, Ma’am:

  • Rebel Forces are attacking a Christian Village. The Syrian Army has sent in troops to defend the Christians. Yet, Obama and McCain wants us the fund the Rebels?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/syria-sends-reinforcements-christian-village

  • Obama wants us to believe that the Syrian Army released chemical weapons on its own people. So why did WE TRAIN the Syrian Rebels to use chemical weapons last year?

“The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.”

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/09/sources-defense-contractors-training-syrian-rebels-in-chemical-weapons/

  • Obama wants us to believe that the Syrian Army released chemical weapons on its own people and NOT the Rebels, so why did military intelligence report that LAST YEAR the Syrian REBELS were already launching chemical attacks on the Syrian Army and openly bragging about it?

“The terrorists have already thrown three cube-shaped plastic bags towards the [Syrian] army’s forces that killed seven due to the gases emerging from the bags,” a commander of the Syrian Presidential Guard told the Iran-based Al-Alam news channel on Sunday…a recently released video purportedly showing Syrian Islamist rebels testing chemicals weapons on rabbits and threatening to use them against Syria’s Alawite Muslims.

“Your destiny would be the same as them because you are missionaries for Naseeriyah and supporters of Bashar Assad,” text underneath the video read. “We from the Ar-Reeh Asarsar Chemical Battalion, the Destructive Wind Chemical Battalion – we shall kill you all with our chemical weapons.”

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-rebels-696/

  • Should we also conveniently avoid the statements of the rebels themselves that the recent chemical weapon incident was THEIR fault and a result of a mishandling of chemical weapons supplied to them by the Saudis?“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” said a female rebel, referred to as “K” to protect her identity. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” K continued.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-rebels-admit-to-being-behind-chemical-weapons-attack/5347424

VIDEO Admission: http://www.infowars.com/video-syrian-rebel-admits-using-chemical-weapons/

  • John McCain promises in a town hall meeting that there will be NO BOOTS on the ground. Yet John Kerry says there will be for “chemical weapon extraction”

http://news.yahoo.com/-obama-puts-twin-syria-sales-pitches-into-high-gear–152634247.htmland

last year the Pentagon KNEW it would take 75k troops on the ground to extract chemical weapons!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/05/Report-Pentagon-Knew-in-2012-75K-Ground-Troops-Would-Be-Needed-to-Secure-Syria-s-Chemical-Weapons

  • And as if we needed further evidence that we have no business in Syria, John Kerry seems very pleased about the fact that the SAUDIs are offering to PAY for our military invasion of Syria. Seriously? Is that what we are now? Paid mercenaries for the Saudi government?

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,’ Kerry said. ‘They have. That offer is on the table.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411806/Offer-table-Arab-countries-pay-scale-U-S-invasion-Syria-says-Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html

  • Just one more REMINDER…evidence shows that the Saudis not only got Obama into Harvard, but funded his education and has since then regularly funded his campaign.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/1979-article-ties-obamas-real-father-to-saudi-financier/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/bombshell-no-wonder-obama-bowed-to-the-saudis-they-likely-funded-him-at-harvard/

Now was that so hard? What do you think about this evidence? Let’s hear from the PEOPLE instead of the politicians who seem to be in the pocket of the Saudi government.

Vouchers ~ School Choice or Government Control?

/in /by

An investigative report conducted by Politico says that $1 Billion in tax payer funds will go to Christian schools in the form of vouchers.  School choice advocates will call this a victory.  The founders believed this practice to be destructive to both liberty and faith. The Politico article serves illustrate that point.

The article argues that tax payer dollars are going to fund an education that,

“go[es] beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact.  Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists.”

People, that is, secular society will be very upset that their tax dollars are being used to teach children to have contempt for the secular world.  Notice that this journalist also used the word “hostility”.  “How can MY tax dollars be used to teach someone to be hostile to me?” is what we are about to hear.  A Christian might say the same thing about tax-funded madrasas.

Proponents of vouchers professes that individuals motivated by “religious convictions” want to send their children to Christian schools and cannot afford to do so, so we need the tax dollars they pay for public education to be “reimbursed” to them to be used for Christian school education.  However, vouchers are not a “reimbursement” of the money paid in taxes, they are a government subsidy.  When the government subsidizes a program they have the obligation to regulate it.    A private Christian school teaching the principles of Christianity and the principles of creationism will soon have to stop teaching those things, if they want to operate using government funding. To do otherwise would compel those who do not share those convictions to provide funding for them.

“to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;”  Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom 1786.

Many of our founders believed that tax dollars should not be used to support anyone’s religious education, Christians, Jews, Pagans, or Muslims.  In our ignorance, we are repeating a battle in American history that our founders already fought and settled.  Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, several legislators, Patrick Henry being one, put forth a bill to pay Christian Teachers with tax dollars.  The bill was titled, A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.  The purpose of this bill was to pay Christian teachers’ salaries out of collected tax revenue.  Patrick Henry was a great defender of Liberty and an ardent Christian.  In this case, his desire to defend the faith blinded him to the dangers of inviting the government into the church in the form of tax subsidies.  Fortunately, there were other legislators present that knew the dangers of such an act, and their stand helped to clarify why good intentions can lead to dangerous destinations.

To understand why it is wrong for tax dollars to pay for Christian education, we must really think about the process as a whole.   When tax dollars are used to pay someone’s salary, those people become government employees.  We like to argue that people who are paid with tax dollars are employees of the “citizens”, but when they get their paychecks they do not call themselves “citizen employees” they call themselves “State employees” or “federal employees”.   And when the government is their employer, the government has the right to dictate and regulate their employment practices; from the curriculum they teach, to the teachers they hire, and even the students they educate.  Since, tax dollars are not the property of the government but of the American people, the American people cannot allow the government to spend their money with no accountability.   Therefore, regulation of government spending of taxpayer dollars is required.  So, to take tax dollars invites government regulation, influence and control into the Christian schools.  In opposition to Henry’s Bill, an “Association of Ministers and Delegates” wrote this response:

“No man or set of Men are entitled to exclusive or separate Emoluments or Privileges from the Community but in consideration of Public Services.  (Quoting the Virginia Declaration of Rights)  If, therefore, the State provides a Support for Preachers of the Gospel, and they receive it in Consideration of their Services, they must certainly when they preach, act as Officers of the State and ought to be accountable thereto for their Conduct. . . .”

The government cannot allow the use of tax dollars in a way that will discriminate based upon criteria such as race, gender, religion, creed, etc.  So if a religious school accepts tax dollars for the performance of a service, the government must regulate that organization’s activity and prevent discriminatory practices.  The organization can no longer perform its service free to the dictates of their religious convictions, but must adhere to a non-discriminatory practice as regulated and dictated by the government.

In 1776, our founders believed that taking tax dollars to pay Christian teachers was paramount to the destruction of religious liberty:

“the Consequence of this is, that those whom the state employs in its Service, it has a right to regulate and dictate to; it may judge and determine who shall preach; when and where they shall preach.  The mutual obligations between Preachers and Societies they belong to . . . must evidently be weakened — Yea, farewell to the Bill of Rights!”

There are deeper spiritual problems with vouchers.  By becoming funded by the government, the original intent motivating Christians to obtain vouchers may be nullified and they may no longer able to teach their children a Christian education while under the government umbrella.

Here is the real issue that should persuade Christians to think twice about vouchers.  Persons acting upon “religious convictions” ought to also believe those religious convictions.  To profess to operate under the conviction and direction of God and then demand the government to provide money, is a violation of the First Commandment.

“[using tax dollars for religiously based programs] tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments,”   Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom 1786.

Christians are taught to bring up our children in the “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”  Christians are taught also told to “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”  Finally Christians know that God is their provider, that he is a loving and gracious Father, who owns the cattle upon a thousand hills and that “your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.”  Christians are commanded to not worry about how they are going to provide for their needs (Matthew 6:31), because we cannot serve two masters.  We must choose God over our love of money.

But when Christians run to government to pay for the education of their children, they declare that God is bankrupt and needs a government bailout!  It tells a world of nonbelievers that even believers cannot trust God to provide for the needs of His children, and that all must rely on government.  It takes a nation that pledges to be “one nation under God” and tells the world we are actually “one nation under government.”   This shameful display of lack of faith undermines the believers dependence on God, and undermines the gospel itself, declaring to the world that God is NOT sufficient to provide for our needs on earth, so how can we trust Him to provide our eternal needs?

Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. [Relying upon government provisions serves]  to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance 1785

The true application of the principle of “separation of church and state” is one that was won with over 700 years of battle.  (for a detailed study in the true application of this doctrine, read here)  This principle, that teaches that government has no place in the church, is wrecked by the likes of vouchers, where Christians, themselves, beg for their own destruction.  I am amazed that even in light of the current battle to keep the government out of our churches in the matter of healthcare mandates, that Christians can even consider demanding government money for programs established upon religious convictions.  Haven’t we seen well enough that where the government is invited in, it will soon run the house?  How can we with clear conscience declare the government has no right to force a religion to operate outside its conscience and provide healthcare contrary to its beliefs and with the same body demand the government give the Christian schools money?

“Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion,”  Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom 1786.

It is time for Christians of all denominations to live their testimony and show the world that we serve a living God who is sufficient in both eternal AND temporal things.  It is time for Christian business men & women to step up and invest in the education of God’s Kingdom.  It is time for the body of the church to step up and be the cheerful givers the God demands us to be and take back the business of charity from the government agencies that have stolen it from the church.  Jesus never commanded the government to take care of the widows & orphans, that commandment was given to his body.

It is time we step up and fulfill our duty to our communities instead of asking and permitting government to engage in forced charity, otherwise known as legal plunder.  How else can we be not just hearers of the word but also doers?

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.  Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?  But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Matthew 6:24, 30, 33

Christians, do what is right before God and say NO to vouchers!

Full Analysis of DOJ Authority to Assassinate US Citizens

/in /by

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Analysis of the DOJ’s White Paper as released February 5, 2013

By KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com

 

  1.   I.           INTRODUCTION
  2.  II.           IMMINENT THREAT OF VIOLENT ATTACK AGAINST THE U.S
  3. III.           BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO KILL CITIZENS
  4. IV.           Is it really just senior operational leader of al-Qua’ida or an associated force of al -Qua’ida?
  5.  V.           JUST INTERNATIONAL OR IS THE DOOR OPEN FOR DOMESTIC ASSASINATION?
  6. VI.           CONCLUSION

I.           INTRODUCTION

The Department of Justice has released a document that they claim justifies the killing of U.S. citizens in the name of national security. Michael Isikoff from NBC news publicized this document that sets out the “legal” authority of the President to assassinate US Citizens without any trial, without any hearing, and as the legal analysis details without any evidence or even knowledge of imminent attack.  It’s called a “Department of Justice White Paper.”  The DOJ’s White Paper is 16 pages of complex legal argument justifying the assassination of US citizens. The following is my analysis of this paper and how it applies potentially to all U.S. Citizens.

This DOJ legal argument attempts to make it appear that only “U.S. citizens who are senior operational leaders of al-Qua’ida or an associated force of al-Qua’ida” are eligible for assassination.   However, great care and effort was made to leave those definitions wide open for future interpretation to include any U.S. Citizen, domestic or abroad, who poses a possibility of threat of violent attack against the United States even when there is no evidence to support such an accusation.

The DOJ indicates its purpose is to justify the use of “lethal force, in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities, against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qua’ida or an associated force of al-Qua’ida.” However, through some clever transitions, the DOJ moves beyond “foreign countries” to include any geographic area and authorize lethal force against any person classified as a potential hostile, by the President or any “high level official of the U.S. government.”

According to the DOJ, killing a U.S. citizen requires that three criteria be met. Page 1 of the DOJ Analysis lists these:

  1. An informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;
  2. Capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and
  3. The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

NOTE:  There is NO MENTION of al-Qua’ida or foreign soil in the three criteria necessary to authorize the assassination of U.S. citizens.

II.           IMMINENT THREAT OF VIOLENT ATTACK AGAINST THE U.S.

The definition of imminent threat is not as simple as Webster’s definition of “Literally, shooting over; hence, hanging over; impending; threatening; near; appearing as if about to fall on;.”  The justification for taking proactive measures against an “imminent threat” are listed throughout the paper, but it can be simply stated that DOJ claims the government has an inherent right to “national self-defense” and therefore can preemptively act even without any evidence.

Our first clarification regarding “imminent threat” involves a balancing act between the target’s “interest in his life” and the “United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence” (page 2 paragraph 2).  The application of “imminent threat” necessitates anticipating a potential threat and acting proactively to prevent the threat.  The DOJ takes a step away from the established criteria of “imminent threat of violent attack” by including persons who are “engaged in plotting against the United States…outside the area of active hostilities.” (page 2 paragraph 2)  This expanded definition includes the anticipation and preemption of a threat from someone merely “engaged in plotting against the U.S.” even if that threat is not in or near the current “hostility.”

The DOJ claims the authority to expand the definition of imminent because their objective “…demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat…  Imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks on Americans.” (page 7 paragraph 3)   This “broader concept” must be left open for further expansion, according to the DOJ because what constitutes imminent threat “will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats…” (page 7 paragraph 2)  The DOJ demands this living, breathing interpretation, because “the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qua’ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that, in light of these predicates, the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike…” (page 8 paragraph 1)

DOJ has thus “broadened the concept of imminent” to include something called a “window of opportunity.”  Therefore this “window of opportunity” justifies the assassinate of U.S. citizens even when there the government “may not be aware” of an actual plot.

So, in summary of this section we can know that the DOJ justifies it’s authority to assassinate a US citizen based upon the necessity to make a preemptive strike against a target who is “engaged in plotting against the U.S.” within a “window of opportunity.”  This ever-changing and expanding definition of “imminent threat” is no limitation at all. It is an amorphous principle with no clear boundaries.

III.           BURDN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO KILL CITIZENS

Every legal procedure has a burden of proof.  In criminal court, to put someone in prison or sentence them to death the burden that must be met by the government is “beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”  In order to get a search warrant the Fourth Amendment requires the government to meet the standard of “probable cause” as reviewed and approved by a judge.  The Fifth Amendment requires that before the government can take someone’s life they are guaranteed an indictment by a grand jury and conviction by a jury of their peers.  One would think that at least these standards would apply if the government is going to take a citizen’s life.  Unfortunately that is not the case and the only reference the DOJ makes to the Constitution is to point out that it DOESN’T APPLY!

“Were the target of a lethal operation a U.S. citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and Fourth Amendment, that individual’s citizenship would not immunize him from a lethal operation.” (page 2, paragraph 2 White Paper)

“The realities of combat render certain uses of force necessary and appropriate, including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the U.S. and whose activities pose an imminent threat of violent attack- and due process analysis need not blink at those realities.” (page 6 paragraph 2)

“Under such circumstances, the intrusion on any Fourth Amendment interests would be outweighed by the “importance of the governmental interest [that] justify the intrusion. (page 9 paragraph 4)

In the DOJ’s White Paper, any notion of placing the statements above in a battlefield context is nullified by the DOJ’s assertion that a targeted citizen may simply be plotting and may not actually pose a threat of impending violent attack and may be far removed from the actual hostility.

So what is the burden of proof for the government to justify its assassinations? According to the DOJ, the government must simply “demonstrate” (page 4 paragraph 1) that the United States’ interest in preventing an anticipated threat of violence outweighs “the person’s interest in his life.”    Although we might think the scales will tip heavily toward life, the government does not agree.  Citing their standard of proof, the government quotes the court of Cf. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 535: “the Court accords the greatest of respect and consideration to the judgments of military authorities…the scope and discretion of that discretion is necessarily wide.”  (page 7 paragraph 1)  And of course in this case, that scope the government asserts, would be transferred to the “high-level official of the U.S. government” making that determination.

As if the standard was not low enough, the DOJ makes the following assertion:

“First, the condition that an operational leader (note, not limited to al-Qua’ida anymore) present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack…will take place in the immediate future.”(page 7, paragraph 2)

In one statement the DOJ has wiped away all Constitutional protections, denied the review of a judge, a jury of your peers, and eliminated the requirement of “imminent threat”.  The DOJ continues by declaring that the government must have the “inherent right to self-defense” and act “even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack.” (page 7 paragraph 2)

What are the “legal” sources the DOJ refers to when determining their burden of proof?

  1. International Law;
  2. International Chapter of Red Cross;
  3. Title 18;
  4. Executive Order 12333; and
  5. Harold Hongju Koh, legal advisor, U.S. Department of State, to name a few…

No reference to the Constitution as a standard, only as an impediment to what the government wants to do.   But, the DOJ makes haste to let the Supreme Court know they have no jurisdiction to determine whether these interpretations are right or wrong.

“Finally, the Department notes that under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations.” (page 10 paragraph 1)

“A judicial enforcement of such orders would require the Court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the President and his national security advisors as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.” Page 10 paragraph 1

(It is ironic that the DOJ, in justifying their murder of U.S. Citizens without due process uses court case law as validation, but refuses the courts access to their judgments.  Yet, when the States properly declare the Supreme Court ineligible to expand the power of the federal government, the federal government is quick to declare the States out of order.  This is truly the placing the Executive branch in supremacy to all….hence a monarchy!) Don’t worry, the government promises that if it does anything wrong, it will police itself:

“The legislature may design some criminal prohibitions to place bounds on the kinds of government conduct that can be authorized by the Executive.” (page 12 paragraph 2)

In summary of this section, the DOJ claims their burden of proof required to take a citizen’s life is merely based upon the discretion of the “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” imposed upon the government’s “inherent right to self-defense.”  No clear evidence or intelligence is needed to demonstrate the threat pose by the target. The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, is not looked to as a standard.  The courts have no authority to question the legality of this policy.  (How can authorizing this level of arbitrary power be acceptable in the eyes of our Congress who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?  How can these elected representatives justify the worst arbitrary power and the most destructive authority to our individual liberty?)

IV.           Is it really just senior operational leader of al-Qua’ida or an associated force of al-Qua’ida?

The first paragraph of the DOJ legal analysis asserts that lethal, stealth attacks are limited to just senior operational leader of al-Qua’ida or an associated force of al-Qua’ida. But that does not follow all the way to the end of their analysis.  As previously shown in section I, the “list” of qualifications required to kill a U.S. citizen does not limit the DOJ to al-Qua’ida.  But the analysis of the DOJ also slowly and progressively changes that limitation to include anyone, anywhere.  The first clear transition begins on page 5 in paragraph 2, where the language describing the persons subject to lethal attack begins to get vague:

“In such circumstances, targeting U.S. Citizens of the kind described in this paper, would be authorized…”

Even before page 5 paragraph 2 the “kind” of person “described” is not limited to al-Qua’ida and the slippery slope continues all the way to the end.  Watch this transition:

  1. An enemy force that poses an imminent threat of violent attack (page 1 paragraph 2)
  2. A U.S. citizen who is plotting against the United States. (page 2 paragraph 1)
  3. U.S. citizen who is part of enemy forces. (page 3 paragraph 1)
  4. Those who belong to armed forces OR armed groups (page 3 paragraph 1)
  5. A party to an armed conflict (page 4 paragraph 3)
  6. Senior operational leader of an enemy force planning violent attacks against Americans (page 6 paragraph 1)
  7. U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the U.S. and whose activities pose an imminent threat of violent attack (page 6 paragraph 2)
  8. U.S citizen who…is an operational leader continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests…(the DOJ then lists the criteria first listed on page 1, but NOT limited to al-Qua-iada any longer)(page 6 paragraph 3)
  9. individuals continually planning to kill Americans (page 7 paragraph 3)
  10. An operational leader of an enemy force and an informed, high-level government official has determined that he poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S. (page 9 paragraph 4)
  11. Enemy leader undertaken in self-defense…authorized by an informed high-level government official…would fall within a well-established variant of the public authority justification…(page 14 paragraph 2)

So in summary of this section, the any limitation of the DOJ’s initial definition of a “target” to persons who are “U.S. citizens who are senior operational leaders of al-Qua’ida or an associated force of al-Qua’ida” is completely removed by the time we get to page 9.

V.           JUST INTERNATIONAL OR IS THE DOOR OPEN FOR DOMESTIC ASSASINATION?

The DOJ begins their analysis by asserting that the use lethal force is restricted to U.S Citizens who are in a “foreign country outside the area of active hostilities.”   But, once again, there are many transitions within this paper that nullify this assertion.

The DOJ begins by referring to the war against al-Qua’aida as a “non-international armed conflict.”  A non-international armed conflict is one “between a nation and a transnational non-state actor, occurring outside the nation’s territory.”(page 3 paragraph 2)   What that means is that this conflict is not defined by borders or nationalities, but is expanded to include a global arena with groups of people only identified by classification of behavior and not acting by the authority of a single government.  Additionally, the DOJ implies there is a limitation that this type of conflict must occur “outside the nation’s territory.”   However, the DOJ quickly does away with that limitation by showing that “any U.S. operation would be a part of this non-international armed conflict, even if it were to take place away from the zone of active hostilities.” (page 3 paragraph 2)    The DOJ continues to justify this move away from international limitations by indicating that even the “AUMF itself does not set forth an express geographic limitation on the use of force it authorizes.” (page 3 paragraph 2)

The DOJ then further abolishes this restriction of an international field:

“The Department has not found any article of authority for the proposition that when one of the parties to an armed conflict plans and executes operations in a base in a new nation,  an operation to engage the enemy in that location cannot be part of the original armed conflict, and thus subject to the laws of war…” (page 4 paragraph 3)

The DOJ further alludes to the expansion from the international limitation by reminding that a “terrorist war does not consist of one isolated incident that occurs in the past.  It is drawn out, patient, sporadic pattern of attacks.   It is very difficult to know when or where the next incident will occur.” (page 7 paragraph 2)

“Delaying action against individuals continually planning to kill Americans until some theoretical end stage the planning for a particular plot would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American causalities would result.” (page 7 paragraph2)

The final evidence that brings the DOJ’s legal justification for killing U.S. citizens home to domestic soil must admit the application of sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA of 2012 (modifications made through NDAA 2013 were essentially irrelevant). The tie that binds these two documents is the term “laws of war.”  Throughout the DOJ’s paper they refer to their authority to engage in the killing of U.S. citizens as authorized under the “laws of war.” (see page 8 paragraph 4, page 9 paragraph 1, page 10 paragraph 2, page 14 paragraph 2, page 15 paragraph 3, page 16 paragraph 2)  This is significant because the NDAA of 2012 not only extends the “laws of war” outside a formal declaration of war to the vague application of “hostilities,” but also allows the president the authority to transfer the powers under the “laws of war” to the FBI.  This is not my interpretation, but that of the current administration and their interpretation of powers authorized through the section 4 waivers of the NDAA 2012.

“Because I believe our national security professionals should decide the best way to detain and prosecute terror suspects, I also opposed provisions of the defense authorization act that would allow only the military to handle terror suspects…Efforts to change that language failed in the Senate.  But after negotiations with the House of Representatives, the final legislation preserves the rights of the Federal Bureau of Investigations and allows the President to waive the requirements for military custody when necessary to preserve national security.”  Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-FL)

In conclusion of this section, the limitation of “foreign” U.S. citizens is systematically wiped away by the elimination of “geographic limitations,” ability to “follow” terrorist fighters to a “base in a new nation,” the necessity of acting quickly to pro-actively “forestall the threat” of persons who are “engaged in plotting against the United States,” and the transfer of power under the laws of war to the FBI.


VI.           CONCLUSION

Although the DOJ crafts an opening paragraph to limit their legal justification to kill U.S. citizens to only those involved with al-Qua’ida on foreign soil, those limitations are completely dissolved by the time we get to the conclusion of the their analysis.  Strangely, the DOJ tries to reinforce their initial limitations by restating their opening paragraph in their final paragraph and claiming that they have in no way attempted to “assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances.”

What is wrong with the Executive branch of a government engaging in the assassination of our citizens, who are classified by the government as combatants against this country, absent due process?  If they can do this without a “speedy and public trial,” we are trusting the government to convey truthful and accurate information to justify their actions. Our founders were intimately aware that the governments often have their own perspective on things and have the power and tools to justify their actions at all levels. Their point would be that a government not only has an agenda, but also has the power to control and manipulate information. Richard Henry Lee stated that we must not only guard against “what men will do, but what they may do.” They knew the power of the government must be closely guarded in favor of Liberty.

What about the fact that the government has already redefined who is a “terrorist”? Just look at Janet Napolitano’s report, as head of the Department of Homeland Security, warning America regarding who is a terrorist; “rightwing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms – and returning war veterans.

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Our founders knew that in a government that has the ability to define the enemy, and the uninhibited inclination to define its own citizens as terrorists, tyranny is already established. Unrestrained power of the government must be continually checked against the Liberty of the people.

Our founders also knew some things that we have forgotten, or more likely, have never been taught. First and foremost our founders knew deep in their soul that “Liberty must be supported at all hazards.” (J. Adams, 1765), It is Liberty that is the most important asset to any peace loving nation. Benjamin Franklin is quoted to have said, “Those who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor security.” How could he make such a bold statement? Because he knew from history that trading Liberty will NEVER result in greater security and once Liberty is traded, you never get it back. I find it very telling that our founders never said, “Peace must be supported at all hazards.” Eliminating enemy combatants –good; assassinating US citizens…a destructive assault on Liberty. This is the Constitutional quagmire we have created by maintaining a completely inept political administration that is completely ignorant of the Constitution and the principles of Liberty it protects.

 “To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution”. (Alexander Hamilton, Fed. Paper #84, quoting Justice Blackstone)

Show 1008 cong crimes

Stamp Act Resurrected

/in /by

At a recent forum Dennis Prager said, “We have forgotten what it means to be Americans. We have been sorely negligent in teaching our children about our Founding Fathers and the tyranny they overcame. We have failed to teach our children the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the principle of Natural Law which teaches us that our rights are gifted to us by our Creator and not the government.”

This negligence has been perpetrated for so long that we have entire generations that have no clue what tyranny looks like, or why it is important to fight for the rights we all hold by the very nature of our birth. This ignorance has permitted citizen and leader alike to sit idly by as many fundamental principles of our Republic are attacked.

George Santayana, philosopher and poet declared, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Yet, here we are today, seemingly doomed to repeat the history that separated our people from the tyrannical rule of a British King.

Many today do not know that our colonists did not come to the American Continent to build a new nation; rather, they came to expand Great Britain. They sought to establish a part of the Empire in which they could freely and fully exercise their natural rights as British citizens. Our forefathers were, in fact, proud British Citizens; as late as 1765 children in the streets were chanting, “King, Pitt, and Liberty.”[1] This simple chant reflected their love of the King. However, when their King’s actions violated both the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the principle of Natural Law, no love of King could sustain the colonists’ allegiance to a tyrant.

Few Americans understand how the Tax Acts of the 1770s drove our forefathers to demand separation from their beloved country of Great Britain. American colonists were becoming increasingly annoyed at the actions of Parliament and the fact that they had no direct representation. Since coming to the American Continent they had become accustomed to electing their officials and the direct representation guaranteed them through the Bill of Rights. So when Parliament, in 1765 passed the Stamp Act,as a measure to collect taxes to pay for the cost of the safety and security of the new Colony, the gauntlet was thrown down.

The Stamp Act required that the King’s stamp be purchased and placed on all printed material, ranging from legal documents to playing cards and dice. The colonists were outraged by this direct taxation and limitation on their free speech. Up until this time the colonists voted in their own taxes when a request for funding came from the British Government. Additionally, the idea that each document must have the stamp of the government was offensive to a people who believed that it was their Creator that granted them this right and that it was not was not proper for the government to invoke such limitations. As if these violations were not enough, the Act also dictated that those in violation would not be tried by a jury of their peers in the colony, but would be sent to foreign soil for trial. The colonists knew that the Stamp Act was a direct violation of their rights as British Citizens, according to well-established English Law and Natural Law, and the Virginia House of Burgesses quickly adopted the Virginia Resolves declaring the Act unconstitutional. The colonists intensely resisted the Stamp Act. Americans petitioned the King and Parliament, rioted, and smuggled or boycotted goods and threatened the lives of those appointed to enforce the Act. In less than a year, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act.[2]

The news of the repeal of the Stamp Act caused a resurgence of British Patriotism. New York City put up a statue of King George in honor of this repeal. The excitement of the people was so overwhelming that the people took no notice when, on the heels of the repeal of the Stamp Act, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act. This Act gave Parliament the right “to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”

As a result of the Declaratory Act, the Parliament began issuing a series of laws against the Colonies and because Parliament had declared them to be “fit for the good of the empire,” the colonists could do nothing to challenge them. Parliament had not repealed the Stamp Act because it understood the Act to be unconstitutional, it repealed it to appease and distract the people, and so they could learn and modify the Act to gain full power and authority over the colonies, “in all cases whatsoever.”

Parliament had learned its lesson from the Stamp Act. It now understood that the colonists would be directly opposed to an internal tax on goods. Parliament then modified its direction to tax only items imported into the colonies and then limited the ability of the colonists to produce their own goods. The new vehicle for their methods was the Townshend Act; a taxation on glass, paint, oil, lead, paper, and tea. The Empire had also learned from the Stamp Act, that it could not employ local people to enforce these taxes and instead sent a swarm of English Custom Agents to collect these taxes and prevent smuggling. In order to enforce this Act, Parliament gave the Agents of the Crown the authority to issue Writs of Assistance.

Writs of Assistance were general warrants that would be written and issued by the British Agents without judge, magistrate, or approval through a hearing. James Otis, an attorney, called these Writs of Assistance, “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.” They were literally hand-written warrants that required no probable cause and little more than mere suspicion. These British Agents, often described as overzealous and corrupt, had the power to break into ships, warehouses, businesses and private homes on nothing more than a whim. Colonists vehemently opposed these clear violations of the Bill of Rights and English Law. John Dickinson, in his Letters From a Farmer, reasoned that:

“In fact, if the people of New York cannot be legally taxed, but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privileges of making laws, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived, in such a case, of the privilege of making laws, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or what signifies the repeal of the Stamp Act, if these colonies are to lose their other privileges, by not tamely surrendering that of taxation?”

The many parallels to the present day are frightening. In the wake of the McCain-Feingold Bill, it would not be surprising to wake up one morning to the “New Stamp Act.” The machinations to find new ways to tax the people harkens back to the many Tax Acts of the 1770s, and we can most certainly see parallels to “the worst instrument of arbitrary power;” consider the Patriot Act. The underlying rationale by Parliament for the Stamp and Townshend acts as enforced by the Writs of Assistance was the safety and security of the nation. This is how the history meets the present day. In the name of national security and safety, Congress has granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation a modern day Writ of Assistance via the National Security Letters.

The statute within the Patriot Act that allows for National Security Letters permits law enforcement to obtain records of people not suspected of any wrongdoing and without judge, magistrate, or court order, based upon mere suspicion. To compound the constitutional imposition of this act, those served with these letters are gagged and prohibited from disclosing that they have even been served with the threat of federal prosecution. As you ask yourself, can this be possible, I will tell you not only is it possible, but we have already seen the tyranny of this power.

In July 2005, the FBI issued a national security letter to four Connecticut librarians. The letter sought computer subscriber data for a 45-minute period, during which a terrorist threat was thought to have been transmitted. In accordance with this letter, a gag order prevented the librarians from talking about the letter to anyone. The librarians refused to comply with the FBI’s request. The librarians were arrested and federally prosecuted. Federal prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, but not until these librarians were indicted and brought before a federal judge under violations of the Patriot Act. And according to an ABC News report, 9,254 National Security Letters were issued in 2005, involving 3,501 people.

As a result of several lawsuits initiated by the ACLU, the provisions of the Patriot Act have been altered. However, these alterations were nothing more than an attempt to appease and distract the public. Provisions inserted to protect libraries were counteracted by a loophole that authorized the original power of the National Security Letters if the library contained public Internet access. Provisions inserted to allow for challenge of the Letters are circumvented in the event the government declares that allowing the challenge would “harm national security.” On the government’s word, the court must accept that assertion as “conclusive” and dismiss the challenge. Even more alarming is the fact that in February of 2010, Congress decided to reauthorize the Patriot Act for three more years.

We must also remember that in 2007, by a vote of 404-6, the House passed HR 1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. Full passage of this Act would open the door for citizens to be prosecuted not only for actions they had taken but also for associating with certain groups or possessing certain belief systems. Just as the Townshend and Quartering acts were stacked together and enforced by Writs of Assistance, how can the Patriot Act and the mutable definition of terrorist provided in HR 1955 combine to make an even more destructive end? Let me remind you of the observation of that Pennsylvania Farmer, “If the [rights of the people] may be legally deprived, in such a case…, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege?

We have ignored the important history surrounding the Revolution of our nation and in doing so, we have allowed our own Congress to repeat its tyranny. In the name of safety and security, our Constitution is being shredded, our liberties are being taken, and our children’s future is being destroyed. We have ignored Benjamin Franklin’s warning that those who would trade their liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security. It appears to me that only the people of this nation are ignorant of its history. The enemies of liberty seem to be well- educated and have learned from its failings and have modified tyranny accordingly. Today’s challenge: Who will stand for the safety and security of OUR Constitution?

No More Lies, Just Liberty! (NDAA)

/in /by

On December 1, 2011 I published an article that gave a straightforward analysis of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). My follow up post on December 7th spoke to the inadequacies of the Feinstein Amendment. And here, as the 220th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights passes by, I can’t help but wonder what has happened to truth?

I would like to know how Congress can justify just one hour of debate over something that is so important, so controversial, and so questionable. I truly enjoyed Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s argument on the floor. He pointed out that many Constitutional Jurists and Military experts are vehemently opposed to this bill, indicating the very destruction of the rights we are trying to protect from terrorist attack. He also did an amazing thing; he shut down the argument that we must pass this bill with these sections so the Military will get funded. He explained that they had plenty of time to fail the bill, take out these malignant provisions, bring the bill back and pass it before the end of the week. What would be so hard about that? Why couldn’t they do just what Rep. Nadler proposed?

As I watched these debates and listened to the arguments over the last few days, I have become so very perplexed at how those who deny the very language of this bill can do so with such conviction. There is such a dishonesty associated with what they are saying. Time and time again I have heard that this bill specifically excluded US Citizens. NO IT DOES NOT. You have to be illiterate or purposefully disingenuous to put forth such an argument. The section specifically says: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Legally speaking, stating that an agency is “not required” to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations. They are legislators, they have to know that!

On top of that, section 1032(4) specifically provides a military waiver anytime national security dictates a need! “The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.” There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a “national security interest”.

This morning I found a jewel, a light bulb came on in my mind. Something that made me want to scream out loud! I was in the middle of a twitter argument over this bill and this person was absolutely adamant that the language of the bill stated that military detention was “inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens.” I finally asked my new twitter friend to send me a link to the bill because I could not find that language. What I got was a link to the Bill Summary and Status, the CRS Summary. I could not believe what I was seeing. The very summary put out by Congress describing this bill was a blatant misrepresentation of the bill itself. The summary stated that section 1032 had specific language that said the detention provisions were “inapplicable to US Citizens”. That is not an accurate summary, it is blatant propaganda! The language, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” is not even close to saying detention is inapplicable to US Citizens. How many Congressmen just read the summary and based their entire argument on that lie?

The thing I find most frustrating is knowing that I am not the only one out there spreading the truth. I have heard statements by Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee, and others. I watched the debate in Congress. I know engaged citizens have been contacting their Congressmen and Senators and passing on the truth. I really believe if at least a handful of people have enough information to make an informed and educated decision, there is no excuse to believe a lie. Yet, that is where we are. I can see why so many are apt to believe in a conspiracy, because when the truth is so important, so compelling, and people will still believe a lie, we must reconcile it with ourselves as a sinister plot. It is human nature. The truth is out there, I know, I have written about it at least 3 times. Don’t believe a lie because it makes you feel safe. Listen to the words of Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84.

“To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution”.

This is EXACTLY what these provision in the NDAA do. We do not have to keep these provisions to fund the military. They are completely irrelevant to that need.

The truth is out there. You have a responsibility to it. Our elected Congressmen and Senators have a responsibility to it. Don’t let them get away with promulgating a misrepresentation of that truth. Don’t allow them to keep telling us we have to eat garbage because the vegetables are in there too. We must know that we cannot have peace from terrorism without having Liberty in America! Don’t sell our Liberty for a little temporary security. It is not our Liberty to sell. It was bought with the blood of our fathers and mothers, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for ages and millions not yet born. This Liberty belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and their children. We must stand for Liberty today, or our children will bow tomorrow! Mark these “leaders” and don’t forget the attack they have perpetrated on the most precious gift America possesses – Liberty!

The Price of Hope: Life, Fortune, Sacred Honor

/in , /by

On November 6, 2012 approximately 11:34PM EST we registered the death of the American Republic. Our founders said time and time again our destruction will come from within. They were right. “A Republic if you can keep it” said Franklin. I’m sorry, Mr. Franklin, we could not. But Mr. Franklin, we will not quit. We are Americans. We don’t quit. We never have, we never will.

No doubt we have suffered a great disappointment. But is this grounds for shrinking back? Is it time for us to just throw in the towel and say “what will be, will be?” Have we given all we have to give? Not compared to what our founders gave for us. Yet, they didn’t win every battle. They got scared, frustrated, discouraged. They had dark days as they struggled against tyranny for more ten long years before the declaring their independence. We have not invented disappointment. We have not invented anger. We certainly have not yet sacrificed life, fortune, and sacred honor to the extent that our founders did. Listen to these excerpts from a letter written by John Adams to his wife Abigail.

John begins by saying,

“I am wearied out with expectation that the Massachusetts troops would have arrived e’er now at headquarters. Do our people intend to leave the continent in the lurch? Do they mean to submit? … Do they wish to see another crippled, disastrous, and disgraceful campaign, for want of an army? I am more sick and more ashamed of my own countrymen, then ever I was before…I am a fool, if ever there was one, being such a slave. I won’t be much longer. I will be more free in some world or other. It is not tolerable, that the opening spring, which I should enjoy with my wife and children, upon my little farm, should pass away…Posterity! You will never know how much it costs to the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that I ever took pains to preserve it.”

Sacrifice. Anger. Frustration. Resolve. That is the price that must be paid to preserve the blessings of liberty to our posterity, that is the price of HOPE.

Listen to the words of Elizabeth Adams, wife of Sam Adams, as she writes a letter to Sam explaining her day, “I beg you would not give yourself any pain on our being so near to the camp; the place I am in is so situated, that if the regulars should ever take Prospect Hill, which God forbid, I should be able to make an escape, as I am within a few stones cast of the back road, which leads to the most retired part of Newton…”

These people lived their lives with a daily escape route. Daily, they anticipated the enemy coming up over their hill and taking them captive. With humble resolve, she concludes, “I thank you excuse the very poor writing as my paper is bad in my pen is made with a broken pair of scissors.”

These were men and women of courage and resolve, willing to give everything for liberty. Mercy Otis Warren wrote, that they were “Ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature, and the privileges of Englishmen claimed by Americans from the sacred sanctions of the compacts.”

They were ready to sacrifice everything so that their children could live in a land where liberty prospered. That was not an empty sacrifice. They were not without fear. As a matter of fact, Mercy Otis Warren wrote, “I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that arise before us, there is no receding; and I should blush if in any instance the week passions of my sex damp the fortitude, the patriotism, and the manly resolve of yours. May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriots in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with the courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

When I joined the military, I swore to support and defend the Constitution. I took an oath when I was sworn in as an attorney in the state of Florida to support and defend the Constitution. I took the same oath when I was sworn in as an assistant state attorney for Florida. I know that these oaths NEVER expire. Every day of my life, as I travel across this country teaching the truth about the foundation of the greatest nation in the world, I renew that oath in my heart and in my mind and in my soul. I will not let that oath die, and I intend to keep it to my very last breath. I don’t do this for me. I don’t do this for you. I certainly don’t do this for the millions out there who obviously have no intent to think for themselves. I do this for liberty. I do this for our children. And I believe it as I’ve never believed anything before. This reasoning is why our founders were able to pledge life and fortune and sacred honor for a generation that they would never know. They believed in their hearts and in their souls that without liberty, life was not worth living. Mercy said, “we will stand against tyranny today, or our children will bow tomorrow.” How can we, have any less resolve? How can we even consider wavering in our stand, much less quitting altogether? What an insult to our framers. Is John Adams repenting from heaven today?

We could learn a great deal about what real patriots act and sound like from the words and the deeds of our great founding heroes. They were dedicated to the cause of liberty and to the battle against tyranny.

We have had a discouraging turn of events, but we must not be discouraged. Patriot, when you are finished grieving over the death of the Republic, there will be work to do and we will need you. We’ve not won this battle, but we must remain resolved. Our obligation does not lie with those who will not listen nor care. Our obligation lies in the same place it has always rested for centuries, our obligation lies with our children. Never falter, never fail. For if we do, we will condemn our children to buy back a gift that has been bought for us, we will condemn our children to be slaves. And they will be forced to purchase back their liberty “with their own blood.”

Grieving is not a sign of weakness, quitting is. You are NOT weak. We do have something to fight for, and it’s the same thing that made you fight last week, last month, last year. We have a marvelous history to live up to. We have a marvelous God who is with us. This is not defeat; this is motivation for the brave, the strong, and the true! So go ahead and grieve, you deserve that right. But when you are done be sure you know, as Patrick Henry said, “we are armed with the holy cause of liberty and we serve a just God.” We will still be victorious! We know the Author and the Finisher of this work and the end of the story has already been written.

Show ORourke

Proof!: DOJ Busy Destroying the 2nd Amend & Arming Terrorists!

/in /by

Is the Federal government aiding and abetting terrorists within the United States? You be the judge. In April ATF made some peculiar changes in their form required for over the counter purchase of firearms, Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record Part I- Over-the Counter. ATF requires firearm dealers to use this form for over the counter gun purchases and cites the reason for these changes to be an order by the Attorney General’s Office. These changes are stunning as they actually make it easier for illegal aliens to purchase firearms than for US Citizens. Transient aliens, which will include illegal aliens, are not required to show any proof of residency and are not required to undergo the same rigorous background checks as citizens. What is the purpose of these changes you may ask? ATF asserts that these changes are necessary to prevent STATES from creating more stringent residency requirements on aliens than those of citizens, but I believe the evidence shows much more than that.

state-limitation

 

(Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)

Gun and ammunition dealers and law enforcement agents are not allowed to request proof of residency from ANY temporary aliens in order to ship, transport, possess, or receive “any firearm or ammunition”.  But guess what? CITIZEN have to provide this information and MORE.

It is relevant to point out that this falls right in line with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arizona. The Supreme Court, in this ruling gave greater protections to aliens, and the DOJ and ATF are falling right in line. (For further understanding of the Arizona ruling please read here)

Aliens with nonimmigrant visas are just temporary visitors. They do not intend to obtain citizenship, express no intent to stay in this country for more than 90 days, make no application for visa, have made no profession of loyalty to the laws of this land, and have had no formal background checks. Have you tried to buy a firearm from a dealer or store lately? How many HOURS did it take you? I bought a .22 rifle built for young shooters and it took me an hour and 45 minutes just for the background checks (yes that is plural, checkS). With these new changes, the AG and ATF have made it easier for transient immigrants to buy guns and ammunition than for US Citizens. The ATF, in enforcing the AG’s standards, claims that the states have no right to do anything about this; the states cannot make more stringent requirements upon aliens than on citizens. However, there seems to be no problem making more stringent requirements upon citizens than on transient aliens.

90-20days

 

 

(Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)

The changes made by ATF and DOJ should be even more alarming when we consider the Government Accountability Office report which criticizes our visa offices for “bickering over the degree of association with a terrorist that would make a visa applicant ineligible to enter the United States.” Our government is authorizing visas to people with KNOWN terrorist affiliations and then making it easier for them to buy, ship, and transport firearms and ammunition than for our own citizens!

Another interesting change in form 4473 occurs in section 10. The updated form adds a new section and a separate question regarding ethnicity, to distinguish Hispanic or Latinos from all other races. This is in addition to the new section 10-b that requires the person to identify race, giving 5 choices.

The original form looks like this:

atf-2010

The changed form looks like this:

atf-2010a

What is the justification for this change? How does a separate distinction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics meet the intent of the Gun Control Act as claimed by the AG? What is the purpose of making this distinction? It is interesting to note that there is no box for “Arab or Middle Eastern” and no box for “Other.” The choices are so specific, how would someone answer that question if they were from Iraq or Israel or Pakistan?  Does that mean aliens from Arab countries do not have to fill out this form at all?

Have we just uncovered the DOJ’s American version of gun running? Is this how they are arming our enemies within? Why else would they make it so easy for aliens with known terrorist affiliations to remain in this country and then make it so easy for them buy, possess, and ship firearms? We must know that this will only serve to dilute our 2nd Amendment rights, or at least provide gun hating legislators and organizations with the ammunition to try.

The AG has made it a point to tell us what they believe Congress’s intent is with immigrant aliens and the Gun Control Act. It would seem that it is inherent upon Congress to respond and correct them. Will the AG’s understandings ever be challenged? It is unlikely when the corrections are generally issued by the Department of Justice against the Department of Justice; the agency governing itself. If we make Congress aware of these changes, they will have the opportunity to stop the “lawful” arming of terrorists in this nation. Will they do their job, or do we have to wait for another tragedy?

***NOTE~ This is a summary of my 6 page report. To view the entire report, please go here.