Tag Archives: NDAA

Real Americans Are Ready To Snap

Real Americans Are Ready To Snap

The Daily Sheeple

Despite popular belief, every culture of every nation draws a line in the sand against government tyranny. The problem is, many draw this line so close to total defeat that it rarely matters. For the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, for instance, it wasn’t until the Germans had already herded millions onto railroad cars destined for death camps and cornered the rest into dilapidated central housing that the ZOB resistance was formed, only to be wiped out a month later. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but clearly too many freedom movements throughout history waited too long to respond to the trespasses of oligarchs.

The Founding Fathers frequently struggled with the proper measure of resistance. Many colonials wanted vengeance on the British after the Boston Massacre in March of 1770, but patriots knew that the timing was not right. The battle to rally citizens to the cause and to educate the masses as much as possible on the facts took precedence over the desire to enter conflict. The Founders endured five more years of British government criminality until nearly 80 farmers and militiamen stood outnumbered on Lexington Green on April 19th, 1775 to confront an army of 700 British regulars on a mission to capture rebel leaders and destroy weapons caches. No one knew at the time that the war would be sparked that day, but everyone knew that a fight was inevitable and near.

I believe the same feeling hangs in the air of modern America for REAL Americans, and by “real”, I mean those who actually support and defend the constitutional values and principles that lay at the foundation of our society. We sense that something is coming; a great change, or an unstoppable reckoning.

Continue reading

It’s Time to Hang the Elected Traitors in Washington with Their Own Legislation

Image

Freedom Outpost

In US. vs. Castleman, decided March 28, 2014, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights is no longer “Declaratory and Restrictive Clauses.” They are judicially now perceived as “privileges.” A “privilege” can be revoked for the slightest of legislative causes, but a “Right” that is “Forever Inviolate” We the People no longer have.

Before its ratification, it was insisted upon that a Preamble be written thereto. (Please notice that the “bill” is singular; not plural!) The Preamble states:

  Continue reading

Obama Making Good On Promise to Eliminate Free Speech

amber-lyon

The Daily Sheeple

Any discussion about free speech in America must begin and end with the NDAA in which the government can snatch anyone off the street, without due process, and hold them indefinitely. This kind of unbridled power has a devastating effect on free speech.

Prior to the 2012 election, David Axelrod, announced that Obama would push for a constitutional amendment to rollback free speech if he was re-elected. Obama is making good on that promise. Obama’s promise to destroy free speech combined with the passage of the NDAA, constitutes a lethal cocktail for all freedom loving Americans.

Continue reading

NDAA – Section 1021″Civilian Authority-the US Constitution” vs “Military Authority-Commander In Chief”

T-Room

Abby Martin interviewed Thomas Drake, a Whistleblower who outed NSA’s covert wiretapping program known as Trailblazer, on this weeks “Breaking the Set.

Martin asks Drake how it felt when the government he once worked for filed charges against him using the Espionage Act for blowing the whistle on the illegal wiretapping program, his response “Total betrayal.” He went onto to say “It is important to note I took an Oath four times to support and defend the constitution. That oath was not an oath to the President, it was not an oath to lie, it was not an oath to secrecy, it was not an oath to a national security agency.  It was certainly not an oath to look the other way when the government itself commits massive fraud, waste and abuse and engages itself in wrongdoing and illegality and that’s precisely what the government did after 9/11, on a vast scale.”

Drake then goes onto articulate “You can’t have a government violating the constitution in secret and then forming all of these alliances w/corporations who themselves are ensuring the continuance of their own interests through the government. That’s not in the best interests of the country let alone the constitution.”

As for the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Section 1021 also known as Indefinite Detention, Drake holds nothing back pinpointing precisely the concern every American should have stating “Section 1021 is really a generalized provision under which the government unto itself wants to exercise military authority at anytime, anywhere, basically against anybody in the United States of America.” The key word in that sentence is “military authority” not “civilian authority” which should send chills up your spine.

Should Obama and Congress Be Arrested Under the NDAA?

T-Room

Should President Obama (alongside Lindsay Graham and John McCain) be wearing an orange jumpsuit?

Welcome to the beautiful and surreal reality of life under American corporatism, under a Congress that churns out thousands  and thousands of pages of (often contradictory) legislation a year.

If providing material assistance to al-Qaeda is illegal under the National Defence Authorization Act (2012), and Obama and Congress are sending $25 million of aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian opposition, aren’t Congress and President Obama violating their own law?

Continue reading

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment.

Continue reading

Obama Hires his Personal Murder Czar and Dems continue to Threaten SCOTUS

CFP

When any country’s leader reaches comprehensive dictator status, he begins either incarcerating or killing off his opponents (aka enemies).  One need only look at the rich and murderous histories of Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and other tyrannical rulers to know that this is a fait accompli in all totalitarian regimes.  In one way or another, each of these tyrants conducted their own personal genocide(s).

Continue reading

Judge Blocks Controversial NDAA

Courthouse News Service

MANHATTAN (CN) – A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.      Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The indefinite detention would supposedly last until “the end of hostilities.”      In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.

Continue reading

A Real Constitutional Law Professor’s Take On The NDAA

Western Journalism

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), recently adopted by Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama, contains language that has raised substantial Constitutional questions by civil libertarians on both the political right and on the political left. The bulk of the lengthy legislation deals with the routine authorization for military spending by the Pentagon, including items such as military pay, veterans’ benefits, weapons procurement, etc. Such legislation must be passed on a regular basis if the United States military is to continue to operate.

However, in the U. S. Senate version of the legislation, S.1867, there are sections dealing with the detaining of people suspected of being involved with terrorist organizations or any groups engaging in, or planning, hostile actions against the United States. These suspects can be arrested by American military forces and detained indefinitely, without formal charges being filed, and without trial, until the “hostilities” end. The term hostilities refers to the general war on terror, not to specific military actions, such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, there is no end in sight to the possible period of detention. This is the version that was ultimately passed by the full Congress.

Continued Reading:

OWS and the planned “endgame” for the U.S.

Are you baffled by the wording, timing and bipartisan support of recent legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Expatriation Act, SOPA, PIPA and ACTA? Are you concerned over the enhancement of domestic security measures that appear to be targeting and incrementally ripping away the rights of law abiding American citizens? Are you concerned about the evolving DHS “domestic extremist” definitions? Have you wondered about the true origins of the financial crises and what appears to be a quickening of events in all sectors of our lives? How about the origins of the current “occupy movement?” When and why everything started? Who and what is to blame? If so, you’re not alone.

Continue reading