February 15th, 2012

The New American: Coalition of Patriot Groups Unite To Oppose NDAA


-

The_Intolerable_Acts

-

Read at The New American:

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10859-coalition-of-patriot-groups-unite-to-oppose-ndaa

Written by Joe Wolverton, II   * Tuesday, 14 February 2012

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.

-




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

59 Responses to “The New American: Coalition of Patriot Groups Unite To Oppose NDAA”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All

  1. 41
    Terri Says:

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.
    particularly the “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” clause of the Oath which is perjury, maladministration particularly: “Delay”, “Incorrect action or failure to take any action “, “Failure to follow procedures or the law, Incorrect action or failure to take any action, Failure to provide information, Misleading or inaccurate statements, Broken promises.

    Following is some words defined that will be used in my accusation.

    Impeachment defined: “A calling to account; arraignment; especially, of a public officer for maladministration” “A calling in question as to purity of motives, rectitude of conduct, credibility, etc.; accusation; reproach; as, an impeachment of motives”. The version which appears in the Constitution states: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The one common denominator is that the official has somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

    Maladministration: “A political term which describes the actions of a government body which can be seen as causing an injustice”,” Situation where the individual or group in charge is unjust, dishonest, or ineffective in their leadership; frequently used to describe corrupt behavior by any public official.

    The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:
    · Delay
    · Incorrect action or failure to take any action
    · Failure to follow procedures or the law
    · Failure to provide information
    · Inadequate record-keeping
    · Failure to investigate
    · Failure to reply
    · Misleading or inaccurate statements
    · Inadequate liaison
    · Inadequate consultation
    · Broken promises

    “Perjury” – “lying under oath about a material matter”, “violation of an oath”.
    “Bound” – “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”
    Treason – “The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: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”.
    “misapplication”: “To administer or manage inefficiently or dishonestly “, “A wrong application”. “Wrong, often corrupt use: abuse, misappropriation, mishandling, misuse, perversion”
    Solemn: “marked by the observance of established form or ceremony”, “legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”. (America fully expected a president who followed the US Constitutional definition of how our government operates. Part of his “why he was better candidate” brought up many times while running was that he was a “Constitutional Professor”. )
    · The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

  2. 42
    Terri Says:

    Impeachment: Criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body. In the U.S. the president, vice president, and other federal officers, including judges, may be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. The House draws up articles of impeachment that itemize the charges and their factual bases. To implement the authorization (H.Res.803) the House also provided that “For the purpose of making such investigation the committee is authorized to require… by subpoena or otherwise… the attendance and testimony of any person… and… the production of such things; and… by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information, as it deems necessary to such investigation.”
    Once approved by a majority of House members, the articles are submitted to the Senate, which holds a trial. At its conclusion, each member votes for or against conviction on each article; conviction requires a two-thirds majority. A convicted official can be removed from office. The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), experts pointed out that federal judges had been removed from office for perjury. They further argued that a president had taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

    The framers wrote the United States Constitution, which delineated a constitutional federal republic. It would consist of three separate but equal branches which were not only designed to perform separate and distinct duties, but to keep each other in check, preventing one from gaining arbitrary power. All of these branches were to be checked by the standard of law set forth in the Constitution, which each officer of the government must swear to uphold. If those officers should fail to keep their oath of office, then it is not only the right but also the duty of those who chose those officers to remove them. The success of this form of government depends heavily upon the vigilant and attentive execution of these duties.

    The Senate managers of an impeachment may attempt to prove that the President committed a statutory crime, though criminal guilt is not necessary in a case involving abuse of power. If they cannot do so, they may present evidence that the President engaged in a course of action or a pattern of behavior that demonstrates “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Those seeking a President’s impeachment may argue that grounds need not be limited to federal statutes. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, in assessing grounds for Nixon’s impeachment, argued that a President could be removed “for conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power” and that these are “not limited to criminal offenses” but refer to acts that undermine the integrity of the government, whether technically criminal or not.
    Congressman Gerald Ford famously asserted that an impeachable offense was whatever Congress said it was, the balance of opinion and practice holds that impeachable conduct entails some serious abuse of office or breach of public trust. (Other issues include: whether impeachment is appropriate for misconduct outside of one’s official duties; whether judges can be removed for misbehavior that fails to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors; and whether the federal courts may judicially review an impeachment conviction).

    A formal accusation of wrongdoing. To impeach a public official is to accuse him of crimes or misdemeanors in the execution of his duties.

  3. 43
    Terri Says:

    1974 the House Judiciary Committee agreed three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon: charged with the abuse of his power as President, obstruction of justice, and contempt of Congress. (Before these articles could be voted on by the full House the President resigned, after being informed that his impeachment and conviction were otherwise inevitable). (1998 the House agreed articles of impeachment against President Clinton on charges of lying about an extramarital relationship). The Senate failed to summon the necessary two-thirds to eject Clinton.

    Although an impeachment proceeding bears a close similarity to a criminal trial, there are substantial differences. First, the President is not necessarily charged with a criminal offense but with improper conduct in performing the duties of his office. Impeachment is not meant to be a partisan proceeding, nor is it used simply to reflect a lack of confidence in the President’s policies or leadership by other branches of government. The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected attempts to make impeachment overtly political. The delegates rejected proposals to make the President removable on the application of a majority of state governors. They rejected impeachment by a mere majority vote of Congress. They also rejected grounds for impeachment that involved the President’s political judgment or vague terms such as “maladministration.” They specified instead that the only grounds for impeachment were “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” These terms referred to the abuse of power, misapplication of public funds, corruption, criminal conduct, or violating the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution.

    A President may also be held responsible for the conduct of his subordinates. He may be charged with a cover-up if he knowingly conceals information regarding a violation of the law or if he fails to remove such officials from office when evidence of their offenses comes to his attention. He may also be charged with failing to see that the laws are faithfully executed, with failing to institute procedures so that officials will act lawfully, or with a conspiracy to see that the laws are violated. A President who testifies falsely in a judicial proceeding may be charged with perjury or obstruction of justice.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United 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.”
    “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”

    The Supreme Court stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
    That says that our airwaves, which belong to the American people, and our right to hear unfettered, unbiased, real news cannot be denied.
    Have all fettered, biased news put a label saying such on it

  4. 44
    Terri Says:

    The information for all of this came from the US Constitution, Penal Code, impeachments made in the history of our country, comments from our forefathers, the Supreme Court

  5. 45
    Brian from Texas Says:

    These Senators and Representatives did far more than pass a horrific piece of legislation and Obama did more than just sign it, they physically assaulted the Constitution and the Citizens they swore to support and defend. As far as I’m cocerned, they’re TRAITORS, every one of them. I’m not running for Congress, but if were and were elected, my first act would be to call for the Impeachment of EVERY Representative and Senator who voted for NDAA on a charge of TREASON.

  6. 46
    Freedom Warrior Says:

    2013 Federal Budget Limits Body Scanners, But Expands Domestic Surveillance
    http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/20120215-1b-s1...

  7. 47
    Poohbah Says:

    “Remember, CPX Foxtrot is coming up.”

    http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/cpx/CPX_Foxtrot.html

  8. 48
    Mary Says:

    I think they may have already started their false-flag by “accidently” burning Korans and then releasing the info that they so did to the Afghani people.

    With American officers being killed, they can call it self defense……

  9. 49
    Lee Says:

    How They Fake Terrorism — Manufactured Fear I

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG5XApyQGHs

  10. 50
    Lee Says:

    Utah Lawmakers Urge Congress to Repeal ‘Indefinite Detention’ Law

    http://www.infowars.com/utah-lawmakers-urge-congress-to-repeal-indefinite-detention-law/

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148