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”

  1. 1
    Freedom Warrior Says:

    EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security: Media Monitoring Seeking Disclosure of Records Detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s Media Monitoring Activities
    http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/

  2. 2
    Freedom Warrior Says:

    Full Speech Daniel Hannan at CPAC 2012 » The Right Scoop
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U6v0pZ9f6kfeature=player_embedded#!

  3. 3
    Mary Sullivan Says:

    Bill to Nullify NDAA passed Virginia assembly 96-4 – now goes to the State Senate

    Very hard pressed to find any word of it in Virginia media.

  4. 4
    tom clark Says:

    keep up the good work

  5. 5
    tom Says:

    THANK YOU–THANK YOU –and I could say it again but that is waste of time. Keep fighting the good fight. It is sad “WE” have allowed our govt to over step so far they believe they can now begin the process to dismantle our Constitution.

  6. 6
    Dave Haskins Says:

    H. R. 1540—266
    SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
    (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
    (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
    Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
    in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
    authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
    (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
    under the law of war.
    (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
    shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
    section 1021 who is determined—
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
    associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
    to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or
    carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
    United States or its coalition partners.
    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
    subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
    has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
    transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
    shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
    1028.
    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
    waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
    to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
    in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
    RESIDENT ALIENS.—
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
    a person in military custody under this section does not extend
    to citizens of the United States.

    Help me connect the dots to this allows the POTUS to detain/harm/hold me against my Constitutional rights.

  7. 7
    THOMAS DUNNE Says:

    KEEP YOUR MUSkET CLEAN AND POWDER DRY!

  8. 8
    Knight Of The Republic Says:

    Educating everyone we come into contact. Family first, then hopefully they wont look at you like a kook when you tell them about the ndaa.

  9. 9
    Lee Says:

    Put that in your pipe and smoke that! These traitors are out of touch of reality, plain and simple! Orrin Hatch of Utah has voted for the disgusting Patriot Act everytime, and now this NDAA BS!

    Now this moron is sending out brochures, saying wasington is broken, and he is the only one that can fix it. He forgets to mention that the slimeball himself has been in washington for 36 years.

    Keep the powder dry!

  10. 10
    Paul Says:

    Is there any N.D.A.A protests in the Dallas area? If so,please get back to me and I will go.God bless America!!!

  11. 11
    Buck Says:

    Forget the mainstream media , they are the reason we are living under a dictator and the House and Senate are filled with incompetent cowards . Our fourth estate , meant to keep us free and safe from the aristocracy have joined them and are just as usless as the injustice department . I am a patriot and love America with all my heart and soul , but I am afraid our great republic has been consigned to the trash bin of history by our current ( and probably future ) government . It was a great attempt at a free and decent country to light the world , but the evil worked continously while too many of us slept . ( figuretively speaking ) . I am speaking of how insidiously the progressives infiltrated our schools , press and government over the last fifty years .

  12. 12
    Dan Skapinsky Says:

    I count 16 states with resolutions, when are the others going to be implimented?
    May God bless you!

  13. 13
    Diane Burkland Says:

    I would like to find out if anything is being done in Michigan,we should be nullifying NDAA too.

  14. 14
    Wolverine Says:

    I’m concerned that by muddling the issue of these intolerable acts with an axe grinding on immigration issues, the entire thing has been co-opted already. The “fire coalition” is a distraction at best, an intentional distraction via disregard for due process in the flagrant labeling of “illegals” at the worst. Proceed carefully as you choose sides in terms of “liberty.” Screw the 1,89, or 99%! What about the 100%?
    Go ahead, [word deleted by Elias Alias]

  15. 15
    Jeff Lewis Says:

    @Dan Skapinsky: There are currently 18 states, with more being added every few days. We’re hoping to have them all done within the next two weeks. -Jeff Lewis, National Director, Patriot Coalition

  16. 16
    Jeff Lewis Says:

    @ Buck, You’re right about the mainstream media. This is why patriots and patriot groups have to be their own media. If you want the marathon explanation of what all is wrong with the NDAA, view the archived footage of the six hour live broadcast of “The Destruction of America: The Intolerable Acts” forum on our Livestream Channel page at: http://livestream.com/WRCG The prime authors of our resolutions, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry went down virtually every rabbit hole on the NDAA. The date to look for is Jan. 14, 2012. The forum was held in Topeka, Kansas.

    Stewart also spoke at the 4th Annual Kansas State Sovereignty Rally in the old supreme court chambers in the Kansas State House on Friday, Jan. 13, 2012. That video is also posted on our Livestream channel. I strongly recommend that all patriot groups consider becoming “their own live media” with free tools such as http://livestream.com and http://ustream.tv

  17. 17
    An American Says:

    This is what I am talking about, action, a plan, solutions you guys have it all!!! I feel some hope now and thank you all for being all that is Good in our country, big hugs to everyone. One question, are all Sheriffs around the USA involved or is it a few? Do you think it is a good idea to ask my city Sheriffs if they are involved with your group or not such a good idea? Thanks again…
    Power to the People…

  18. 18
    BanG Says:

    These “Squaters” in DC need a wakeup call. What they are doing is “Treasonous in act” and we are witnessing the death of our constitution. I say kick all the lifers out of Congress, House and the Senate and start over! I would also add “Where the hell” are the joint chiefs of staff on this? They swore an OATH as well………?

  19. 19
    Gregory Boyle Says:

    I find myself asking why we continue to do battle on each individual act perpetrated by this administration. Have we become so desensitized by the continual onslaught that we have forgotten that we can remove politicians for acts of high crimes and misdemeanors. There is an entire laundry list of treasonous acts against the constitution and the people of this nation that would justify articles of impeachment. Perhaps we would be better served to begin applying pressure to our senators to bring articles of impeachment upon Obama.

  20. 20
    Chuck Matson Says:

    Now that they are arresting people and confiscating their firearms because they tell their doctors of symptoms of suspected illness, people had better wake the HELL UP! For those who have not seen it, I refere to the guy that was on the natgeo prepers show. Tip of the iceburg folks!

  21. 21
    Lee Says:

    Are you a Patrioterrorist?

    http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2012/02/16/i-am-a-patrioterrorist/

  22. 22
    shawn disney Says:

    Great idea to fight this new Intolerable Act in a new way. Keep up the good work.

  23. 23
    Ralph Braly Says:

    They came for the rich, but I was not one of them and said nothing.
    They came for the Catholics but I was not one of them so I said nothing.
    Now they are coming for all of us and 50% of us don’t know it or care.
    The worst part is that only 3% of us will stand up to tyranny.

  24. 24
    Freedom Warrior Says:

    In 1983, at the height of the cold war, Barack Obama, then a senior at Columbia University, wrote in a campus newsmagazine about the vision of “a nuclear free world.” The article in the Sundial profiled two campus groups: Arms Race Alternatives and Students Against Militarism. Interesting.
    http://documents.nytimes.com/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article#document/p1

  25. 25
    Mary Sullivan Says:

    Dave Haskins – We have tentatively finished a one page NDAA for Dummies to help nonlegal folks to understand. Maybe they will let us post it.
    .
    They are trying to block us from the mainstream media. I called a local political reporter and he hadnt heard of ndaa.

    What you can do is word of mouth, the one thing they can’t turn off. Start local with your own legislators and newsfolk. Your friends and neighbors, etc.

  26. 26
    Jason Says:

    @Dale Haskins

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1698&tab=committees

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166&tab=summary

    These are the bills before Congress. You are right in pointing out that the law does not apply to US citizens, but they are now paving the road to end your US citizenship status. If you are no longer deemed a US citizen then the law can be applied to you.

  27. 27
    John S. Says:

    I fully agree that NDAA is a usurpation of the power retained by WE THE PEOPLE. However stating that OBummer gave himself “DICTATORIAL POWERS” is blatantly false.

    I have and so far continue to disagree with everything he has done as president except getting our brothers out of the grinder called IRAQ, but CONGRESS made this law and they should be held JUST AS RESPONSIBLE.

    Holding usurper OBummer solely responsible makes us just as corrupt as they. It appropriately looks like a Rebloodlican gang -vs- Democrip gang thing vice a Constitutional/ right -vs- UNConstitutional/wrong issue.

    Support and Defend never ends.
    John S.
    Chief Petty Officer
    (MY) US NAVY

  28. 28
    Mary Sullivan Says:

    Jason, John, Dave, et al,
    THe NDAA DOES apply to Americans. Look at section 1021b. After they mention Taliban/AlQ they strategically put the word OR in vs AND. In law, once you say or, the first part is no longer necessary.

    In 1022, the restrictions that apply there apply ONLY to section 1022, NOT to 1021 which does allow the indefinite detainment of Americans. I’ll post 1 page NDAA for Dummies either tonight or tomorrow. It still needs some tweaking and refinement, but I did my best to keep it simple.
    Mary

  29. 29
    Mary Says:

    Section 1021 applies to Americans, not 1022. 1021b Allows for indefinite detention of Americans

    The restrictions in Section 1022 apply only to section 1022

  30. 30
    Terri Says:

    I charge that Barack Obama has not done the duties required of the President of the USA as defined by the US Constitution, actively and knowingly went against the duties of the POTUS(Cosntitutional Professor) and needs to be impeached. Then he needs to be charged, arrested, and held for prosecution, as he is a flight risk.
    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), and can include criminal/civil actions.
    It has invited considerable debate, but it is generally read to mean both indictable offenses and other serious noncriminal misconduct. The latter has included corruption, dereliction of constitutional duty, and violation of limitations on the power of an office
    Actions he committed against our laws require prosecution.
    That Obama:
    (1) Actively and knowingly went against the US Constitutional and the citizens of the United States. (impeachable)
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    NDAA
    Patriot Act extensions and additions to
    Warrantless Search and Seizures
    TSA warrantless searches
    Denial of First Amendment Rights
    Denial of Second Amendment Rights
    Denial of Constitutional Rights
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Using our military for UN war efforts

  31. 31
    Terri Says:

    (2) Did not keep the oath required of him by the US Constitution. (impeachable)
    President Obama had/has taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had/has violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. (*Clinton Impeachment)
    Took the Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution” (prosecutable, as he is a domestic enemy attacking us from the inside.)
    Oath: “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”
    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.
    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. Hence the need for Statue 1 to define the administration of the Oath. (Impeachable and prosecutable)
    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”. (American 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”
    “Bound – Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”
    o He violated the law and the provisions of the Constitution by seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress. Although his unlawful cronies in Congress granted him the authority after the fact, his action to seize corporations was a violation of the law at the time it was implemented. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed this atrocity is no matter. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he articulated a key principle of liberty–any government that willfully violates the rule of law and encroaches on the rights of the people ceases to be a legitimate government. This government has violated the provisions of the 5th Amendment regarding due process and fair compensation at the very least.

  32. 32
    Terri Says:

    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people (defend our Constitution, country from previous domestic enemies)
    Deny states their power
    The meanings of the words in the Oath: “I”- an individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer; “do” – perform, accomplish, act, carry out, complete, achieve, execute; “solemnly”- somberly, gravely, seriously, earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and ceremony; “swear (or affirm)” – vow, pledge, promise, guarantee; “that I will” – a positive phrase confirming present and future action, momentum, determination, resolve, responsibility, willpower, and intention; “preserve” – to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction; “protect” – to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction, to maintain the status or integrity of especially through financial or legal guarantees, to provide a guard or shield; “and defend” – protect, guard, preserve, secure, shield, look after; “the Constitution of the United States.”

  33. 33
    Terri Says:

    (2) Committed treason (impeachable and prosecutable)
    a. Supplied arms to illegal gunrunners for foreign nation that was later used on American soil to kill US citizens.
    Operation Gunrunner, Fast and Furious (Impeachable and prosecutable)
    Got the funding for Operation Gunrunner (Fast and Furious) on his second try, rolled into the stimulus package a month later.H.R.1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Ordered the sale of arms to illegal gunrunners for foreign nation used against and killing US citizens on American soil, also resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry using one of the trafficked guns.
    ATF leadership appears to have been effectively muzzled while the DOJ sent over false denials and buried its head in the sand,” … “That approach distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation.” … the activities of other agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, perhaps even the U.S. Attorneys Office and the Department of Homeland Security.
    At an oversight hearing last month, three federal firearms investigators testified that they wanted to “intervene and interdict” the guns at the border, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside and let the traffickers proceed.
    “Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals this was the plan,” John Dodson, an ATF agent, told the panel. “It was so mandated.”
    Agent Olindo James Casa said that “on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PNhYk9NuNc&feature=player_embedded#
    Project Gun Runner (Fast and Furious) was launched under the orders of President Barack Obama with the knowledge of Attorney General Eric Holder. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announced the Obama Administration’s new and aggressive ‘comprehensive plan’ on March, 24, 2009. The plan was aimed at disrupting gun trafficking between the United States and Mexico.
    An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge. It’s sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office”
    Obama and Holder walk guns into Honduras also
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

  34. 34
    Terri Says:

    (4) Committed Murder under Penal Code
    Operation Gunrunner, Fast and Furious (Impeachable and prosecutable)
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Info on #3
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim24.htm
    § 24.01 Definition of Homicide
    [A] Common Law and Statutory Homicide – At very early common law, “homicide” was defined as “the killing of a human being by a human being.” This definition included suicide. However, modern law defines “homicide” as “the killing of a human being by another human being.” Suicide, therefore, is no longer a form of homicide in most statutes. Homicide is divided into two crimes – murder and manslaughter.
    [1] “Human Being” – The common law and majority approaches define the beginning of life as birth for purposes of interpreting the criminal homicide law. A minority of states now treat a viable – or, at times, even nonviable – fetus as a human being under the homicide statute.
    Regarding the end of human life, a majority of states, either by statute or judicial decision, have incorporated “brain death” in their definition of “death.”
    [2] “Murder” – The common law definition of “murder” is “the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.”
    [3] “Manslaughter” – Manslaughter is “an unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought.”
    [4] “Malice” – As the term has developed, a person kills another acts with the requisite “malice” if he possesses any one of four states of mind:

    · the intention to kill a human being;
    · the intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another;
    · an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life; or
    · the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death result
    [B] Model Penal Code – A person is guilty of criminal homicide under the Model Code if he unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being [MPC § 210.0(1)] purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. [MPC § 210.1(1)] The Code recognizes three forms of criminal homicide: murder, manslaughter, and (unlike the common law) negligent homicide.

    § 24.02 Murder
    A] Degrees of Murder – At common law, there were no degrees of murder, and murder was a capital offense. Reform of the common law has resulted in the division of murder into degrees, with only murder in the first degree being a capital offense.
    The Model Penal Code rejects the degrees-of-murder approach.
    [B] Intent to Kill
    [1] “Deliberate and Premeditated” – Typically, a murder involving the specific intent to kill is first-degree murder in jurisdictions that grade the offense by degrees if the homicide was also “deliberate” and “premeditated.”
    [2] “Wilful, Deliberate, Premeditated” – Nearly all states that grade murder by degrees provide that a “wilful, deliberate, premeditated” killing is murder in the first degree.
    [3] “Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Injury” – Malice aforethought is implied if a person intends to cause grievous bodily injury to another, but death results. In states that grade murder by degree, this form of malice nearly always constitutes second-degree murder.
    4] Extreme Recklessness (”Depraved Heart” Murder) – Malice aforethought is implied if a person’s conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life. In states that separate murder into degrees, this type of murder almost always constitutes second-degree murder.
    [C] Model Penal Code – A homicide is murder if the defendant intentionally takes a life, or if he acts with extreme recklessness (i.e., depraved heart murder).

    § 24.03 Felony-Murder
    [A] Common Law – At common law, a person is guilty of murder if he kills another person during the commission or attempted commission of any felony. Nearly every state retains the felony-murder rule.
    [B] Statutory Law – Under most modern murder statutes, a death that results from the commission of an enumerated felony (usually a dangerous felony, such as arson, rape, robbery, or burglary) constitutes first-degree murder for which the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment. If a death results from the commission of an unspecified felony, it is second-degree murder. The felony-murder rule authorizes strict liability for a death that results from commission of a felony
    [C] Model Penal Code – The Code also provides for felony-murder by setting forth that extreme recklessness (and, thus, murder) is presumed if the homicide occurs while the defendant is engaged in, or is an accomplice in, the commission, attempted commission, or flight from one of the dangerous felonies specified in the statute. [MPC § 210.2(1)(b)]

    § 24.04 Limits on the Felony-Murder Rule
    [A] Inherently-Dangerous-Felony Limitation – Many states limit the rule to homicides that occur during the commission of felonies which by their nature are dangerous to human life, e.g., armed robbery.
    [B] Independent Felony (or Merger) Limitation – Most states recognize some form of “independent felony” or “collateral felony” limitation. That is, the felony-murder rule only applies if the predicate felony is independent of, or collateral to, the homicide. If the felony is not independent, then the felony merges with the homicide and cannot serve as the basis for a felony-murder conviction. For example, most jurisdictions hold that felonious assault may not serve as the basis for felony-murder.
    [C] Res Gestae Requirement – A requirement of the felony-murder rule is that the homicide must occur “within the res gestae [things done to commit] of the felony,” which requires both:
    · temporal and geographical proximity – There must be a close proximity in terms of time and distance between the felony and the homicide. The res gestae period begins when the defendant has reached the point at which he could be prosecuted for an attempt to commit the felony, and it continues at least until all of the elements of the crime are completed. Most courts provide that the res gestae of a felony continues, even after commission of the crime, until the felon reaches a place of temporary safety
    · A causal relationship between the felony and the homicide.
    [D] Killing by a Non-Felon
    [1] The “Agency” Approach – A majority of states that have considered the issue apply the so-called “agency” theory of felony murder, which precludes any killing committed during the commission of the felon by a person other that the defendant or his accomplices from serving as the basis for felony-murder. However, a killing by an accomplice can be imputed to others involved in the commission of the felony so that felony-murder can be charged against the non-killers.
    [2] “Proximate Causation” Approach – A minority of courts apply the “proximate causation” theory of felony-murder under which a felon is liable for any death proximately resulting from the felony, whether the killer is a felon or a third party.
    [3] “Provocative Act” Doctrine – A felon may be held responsible for the death of another at the hands of a third party, if the basis for the charge is not felony-murder, but instead is founded on what is sometimes termed the “provocative act” doctrine, which is simply a form of reckless homicide, e.g., a felon recklessly provokes a victim to shoot in self-defense, killing an innocent bystander.
    § 24.05 Manslaughter
    [A] Forms of Manslaughter – Traditionally, three types of unlawful killings constitute manslaughter:
    · an intentional killing committed in “sudden heat of passion” as the result of “adequate provocation” (voluntary manslaughter);
    · an unintentional killing resulting from the commission of a lawful act done in an unlawful manner (involuntary manslaughter). This is akin to criminally negligent homicide.
    · an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act (involuntary manslaughter). This type of manslaughter is sometimes dubbed “unlawful-act manslaughter,” or if the killing occurred during the commission of a non-felony, “misdemeanor-manslaughter.”

  35. 35
    Terri Says:

    (5) Is a domestic enemy of the USA (impeachable and prosecutable)
    “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights.
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    (6) Lied to the American People and congress
    About Afghanistan, war (impeachable and prosecutable – murder for killings)
    Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the U.S. Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan.” Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis, a 17-year Army veteran recently returned from a second tour in Afghanistan.
    Lied to the People about NDAA, Patriot Act, Healthcare Bill aka Obamacare
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    On September 8th, 2011, General William Shelton told lawmakers during a highly classified briefing. The four-star general is in charge of Air Force Space Command. According to the Daily Beast, “Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.”
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    (7) Failed to provide all necessary documents (impeachable)
    To the satisfaction of all, or a majority of the American people that he meets the three requirements to run for, or be the POTUS (He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
    Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified, while the Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

  36. 36
    Terri Says:

    (8) That he denied and took away power from the States (impeachable; anyone injured or killed due to those actions, prosecutable))
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Another aspect of the Constitution’s separation of powers is the principle of federalism. Federalism is a legal and political system where the national or federal government shares power with the state governments while each maintains some degree of sovereignty.
    The Constitution helps to delineate the roles of the federal government by spelling out its limited powers, which are outlined in the first three Articles. Section 10 of Article I also places specific, limited restrictions on the states; however, these restrictions actually serve to emphasize the powers reserved exclusively to the federal government (e.g., the power to make treaties with other nations). Article IV delineates a few fundamental requirements incumbent upon state governments, as well as guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government. Other than the limited guidance given to the states, the Constitution does not direct the states on the establishment and functions of state governments. The idea is that there are certain limited activities the federal government is best situated to handle; there are other activities that are best left to the states; and still others best dealt with by counties, cities, families, and individuals. 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
    · State law enforcement agencies (Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who has spent the latter half of his life teaching sheriffs that they are the top law enforcement officers in their counties despite continuing federal intervention attempts.
    · Dean Wilson, sheriff of Del Norte County (Sacramento), is a great example of this great awakening. He received the loudest and longest applause for his candor in confessing past faults after apologizing for not understanding the central government assault and land grab being committed against the people and what he should have been doing about it. Only in the past year has he done a turnaround and begun to behave as a county sheriff instead of an extension of federal law enforcement.
    · Retired USAF Col. Richard Niemela of Reston, Va. has been exposing the federal monster for years. He told AFP: “It’s the surreptitious domination by international globalists insidiously using unauthorized and illegal tactics to render null and void those historic and unique powers of the sheriff.”
    i. The US has actually been militarizing much of its (State) police agencies. the US congress passed the PATRIOT Act, a sweeping expansion of domestic and foreign intelligence-gathering capabilities. This legislation gave the government the ability to easily search all forms of communication, eased restrictions on foreign intelligence-gathering at home, gave itself greater power to monitor financial transactions and created entirely new categories of domestic terrorism to which the PATRIOT Act’s expanded powers to police could be applied.
    It was one of the greatest expansions of government police power in history, an expansion which, after some tweaking, has been mostly validated by the congress and reaffirmed by the courts.
    · President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security to “develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks” a week after PATRIOT Act was passed. Then a year later, the Department of Homeland Security was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
    · Today Department of Homeland Security is the third-largest government agency, after the departments of defense and veterans’ affairs. Not including the billions the federal government spent on its own agencies, it has also disbursed many billions more to various state and local police agencies, ostensibly for the purpose of fighting the terrorist threat.
    DHS created new surveillance opportunities for non-terrorist activity. In one notorious case from 2006, it was revealed that Homeland Security had given the remote Alaskan village of Dillingham (population 2,400) $202,000 to purchase surveillance cameras in order to track alleged terrorist activity.
    Dillingham was not on any known terrorist’s target list, so the only people the surveillance cameras were watching were the citizens. But surveillance wasn’t the end of it.
    · As reported by Radley Balko in the Huffington Post, a Pentagon program – started in the 1980s – to give military equipment to local police escalated in the 2000s, with even university campus police receiving everything from M-16s to armored personnel carriers. Balko quoted one county sheriff saying that he’d use his new Homeland Security-funded SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too … just a multitude of other things”.
    · All over the country, police switched out their traditional uniforms for Battle Dress Uniforms, dubbed by one retired policeman in the Washington Post as “commando-chic” regalia.
    · Former San Jose chief of police Joseph McNamara raised these alarms as early as 2006 in the wake of the Sean Bell shooting in New York. He pointed out that the effects of the drug war and 9/11 had led to “an emphasis on ‘officer safety’ where paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed”.
    · In the name of “officer safety”, the Taser became a common tool in everyday policing, deployed with little knowledge of the effects, and a tendency to Taser first and ask questions later. But over the course of the past decade, the body count grew as it became more and more obvious that tasers were sometimes as deadly as the guns they purported to replace.
    · ‘Pain compliance’ And that’s the most prosaic of the new policing toys that are becoming available. Reporter Ando Arick analysed the new generation of weaponry in an article in Harper’s called “The Soft-Kill Solution – New Frontiers In Pain Compliance”. He recounts a 60 Minutes investigation into a new weapon to be used for what the military said was “crowd control in Iraq”.
    · The United States has never had fully militarized police before, armed with the kind of high-tech surveillance and weaponry that would never be allowed if the National Guard were called up in an emergency. And neither have we ever had such a malleable definition of what constitutes an emergency.

  37. 37
    Terri Says:

    (9) That he is denying American citizens and those legally allowed being here their Constitutional Rights (impeachable)
    NDAA
    TSA at airports (”A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.” 49 US Code-Section 40103), bus stations, train stations, on our roadways.
    Patriot Act
    First Amendment
    Second Amendment
    The Bill of Rights sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury
    “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
    H.R.1955 and S.1959 included in President Obama’s January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural), that also included extension of President Bush’s Patriot Act (singular)
    The Legalization of the monitoring and censorship of all US Communications, “Anyone Returning from the Wars is a potential Homegrown Domestic Terrorist”- Guilty until proven innocent
    US NORTHCOM in relation to the US Insurrection Act
    Posse Comitatus Act
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Warrantless Searches
    Warrantless Tracking of US Citizens
    Warrantless spying on all the information that can be gathered in many ways: cell phone, stuff made to spy on us, etc
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Using our military for UN war efforts

    (10) That he is, and has been; committing “conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power” (impeachable)
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    It based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded: “Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office”
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Took away States power
    Misapplication
    Maladministration
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    He violated the law and the provisions of the Constitution by seizing control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress.
    Although his unlawful cronies in Congress granted him the authority after the fact, his action to seize corporations was a violation of the law at the time it was implemented. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed this atrocity is no matter. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he articulated a key principle of liberty–any government that willfully violates the rule of law and encroaches on the rights of the people ceases to be a legitimate government. This government has violated the provisions of the 5th Amendment regarding due process and fair compensation at the very least.

  38. 38
    Terri Says:

    (11) That he wrote legislation (impeachable)
    (Obamacare), which is the duty of the legislative branch not the executive branch within the three branches of our government.
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    (12) That he assigned funding to the Healthcare Bill (impeachable)
    Obamacare-legislative branch duty.
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    (13) That he refused to enforce the US Constitution or existing laws (impeachable)
    illegal immigrant, and actually ordered to do the opposite of existing laws.
    Did not uphold and enforce US laws as required.
    New Hampshire State Representative Harry Accornero has charged Obama with treason for failing to uphold federal immigration law and allowing illegal immigrants to not only remain in the country, but also to obtain work permits via executive fiat. Accornero stated that Obama is “destroying the country.” In a letter submitted to The Laconia Daily Sun today, Accornero said, “Any President or member of congress who allows our borders to be violated by illegals of any country
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people.
    Took away states power
    Taking care of foreign nations people before and above American citizens when sworn to represent America and American citizens: The Republican in charge of doling out foreign aid wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing “grave concern” over cash payments to Pakistan and asked they stop. Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, who chairs a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee responsible for foreign aid, is singling out $190 million in “assistance for flood victims who lost their homes” in Pakistan the day after turning down American citizen assistance to those who lost 1000’s of homes due to fire here in the US.

    (14) That he was Chair for the UN (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder)
    Against the US Constitution
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Using our military for UN war efforts

    (15) That he lied deliberately to the American public (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder )
    Mislead them as to his intentions on NDAA
    Patriot Act Extension and additions to
    Guantanamo
    Healthcare
    Attack on Afghanistan
    Fast and Furious
    Maladministration
    (1998 the House agreed articles of impeachment against President on charges of lying)
    Using our military for UN (and other) war efforts

  39. 39
    Terri Says:

    (16) Bribery – ?? The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office.
    Not following the Constitution as required, creating a different gov at someone else’s bidding not sure for what reward
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    (17) Disclosed confidential information (impeachable and prosecutable)
    Seal Team 6, Biden also
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    (18) Took for himself powers he is not allowed to have by our Constitution (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder)
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office (NDAA, Suspension of Constitutional Rights, Declaring the US soil as War grounds, Drones flying all over America, Illegal tracking of American Citizens, Illegal monitoring of all American citizens, etc)
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    Took away states powers
    Putting the USA under UN laws that directly go against the US Constitution and the guaranteed Rights from our government: Gun Rights Free Speech: Internet

    (19) He has obstructed justice (re: Nixon Impeachment) (impeachable)
    Black Panthers
    Georgia vs Obama and other courts vs Obama
    Fast and Furious (Operation Gunrunner), which he fought for funding in 2009, and implemented it.
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    (20) Abuse the power allowed the executive branch by the US Constitution (impeachable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder)
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Mandate to make us all buy health insurance
    Disclosed confidential information
    NDAA
    Extension and addition to the Patriot Acts
    Contempt of the judicial branch
    Contempt of the legislative branch
    Warrantless searches
    Putting the USA under UN laws that directly go against the US Constitution and the guaranteed Rights from our government: Gun Rights Free Speech: Internet
    Warrantless gathering of information on American citizens
    TSA agents used against American citizens 24/7
    Voter fraud
    His use of ACORN as a campaign vehicle is a violation of the law. Entities such as ACORN are prohibited by the Federal Government from engaging in partisan political activity
    Suspension of Constitutional Rights
    Overreaching the executive branch powers
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    He broke a law that he himself pushed and helped pass as a Senator that provides protections for Inspectors-General who do their jobs by investigating corruption, waste, and fraud in government programs. Yet when these government watchdogs get too close to the thuggery of Obama’s friends, they get summarily fired for no good reason, such as Mr. Walpin.
    Kept the Federal Reserve – Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people.
    Refusal of Constitution, Amendment 2, trying to redefine it. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
    1. “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms”. Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia’s constitution of 1776.
    2. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”. George Washington, in a speech to Congress, January 7,1790
    3. “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men”. Joseph Story, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840)
    4. ”In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis”. Stephen P. Halbrook, “That Every Man Be Armed”, 1984
    5. “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)
    6. ”The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Thomas Jefferson
    7. “The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freemen”. Gov. R. Lucas, former Major General of the Ohio Militia, 1832
    8. ”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”. Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776
    9. ”We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”. Abe Lincoln
    Refusal and arrests made for practicing 1st Amendment Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
    · Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We have not had a free press in about 30 years.
    Stopping Religious Freedom –
    etc

  40. 40
    Terri Says:

    (21) Contempt of the Judicial Branch and the Rule of Law, Contempt of Court (impeachable and prosecutable)
    (Obama essentially said that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely – Obama vs Georgia) (As further noted in the motion for a Contempt of Court ruling, the letter from Obama’s lawyer to the state official, “coupled with the defendant’s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law. The… actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.”
    Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch… In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate… When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”
    Obama’s action, he said, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”
    Maladministration
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Misapplication

    (22) Has given the United Nations (foreign entity) power over USA (impeachable, and as traitor prosecutable, and for anyone hurt or killed in the war efforts; Murder) and let the Federal Reserve continue
    Freedom of Speech, 1st Amendment – power over our Internet
    Obama and Hillary Clinton are giving the UN power over our gun Rights (2nd Amendment), basically given power over our country to a foreign entity.
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication
    Using our military for UN war efforts
    Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks, and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the American people.

    (23) Gave himself assassination powers. (impeachable, and for at least one kill, prosecutable as murder)
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    (24) Implemented the use of Torture (impeachable and prosecutable)
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    (25) Ordered U.S. Army active duty combat troops into the small civilian community of Samson, Alabama, USA (impeachable, as long as no one was injured or killed; prosecutable if anyone was injured or killed)
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    TSA – used against American citizens 24/7 at airports for illegal warrantless searches; causes health problems
    Misapplication

    (26) Committed Perjury (impeachable and prosecutable)
    The word “perjury” is usually defined today as “lying under oath about a material matter”, “violation of an oath”: violated the Oath of Office, Afghanistan military attack on, Fast and Furious, NDAA, TSA actions against American citizens, warrantless searches, illegal tracking, illegal and warrantless spying on all US Citizens
    Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    Maladministration
    Misapplication

    Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch… In this instance case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate… When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”
    Obama’s action, he said, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

    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

  41. 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

  42. 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.

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. 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.

  46. 46
    Freedom Warrior Says:

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

  47. 47
    Poohbah Says:

    “Remember, CPX Foxtrot is coming up.”

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

  48. 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……

  49. 49
    Lee Says:

    How They Fake Terrorism — Manufactured Fear I

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

  50. 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/

  51. 51
    Mary Says:

    VA Senate passes bill to nullify NDAA 39-1!
    Now it goes to the GOV who tried desparately to kill it.
    An historic day a VA is the first state to pass a law

  52. 52
    scott Patrick Says:

    Some of you may not like what I am about to say, but I would ask you to consider it before you throw it out. In the absence of Accountability you will have abuse of power and some level of tyranny. For too long, our Presidents have ruled without accountability. The solution is that no one is to be above the law and that all wrong doers need to be held accountable for their actions. This is how we regain our power. This is how we instill fear in our leaders that they will be prosecuted. Looking at the records after WWII we can find that the US government tried Japanese military for war crimes in that they used water boarding. The law is not to be used in a selective manner. In order for this country to prove to the world that “we the people” are free, it will take the prosecution of Obama and George Bush, to name a few, for crimes against humanity. I know that men like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry would not stand and let what these two men mock justice. We the people must come together and demand that this is done according to law. If not our law, then the world court. We have allowed tyranny for too long. We need to show ourselves and the world that Justice is for all.

  53. 53
    tjzbears Says:

    It passed in Virginia BUT one of our Reps in Virginia… we all know him as the lib we can’t get rid of Congressman WOLF

    Please read the following and call or write your reps and Dear Governor McDonall
    Your calls and emails to State Senators tipped the scales, from a 20-20 vote, to a veto-proof 39-1 vote for a slightly amended version the next day. But because the bill was amended, it had to go back to the House.

    Now, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) is getting involved. He’s insinuating, through Delegate Barbara Comstock, that some forms of federal cooperation will evaporate.

    And Ms. Comstock is also arguing that, even though she and her colleagues have sworn an oath to the Constitution, this is a federal problem and none of their concern.

    And here’s my favorite part! Some members are bothered that many of the people calling and writing are using the word “nullification.”

    We’ve been told it’s a turn-off. Really?

    Imagine that. Scared of a little word. There are two things to point out here.

    First, as much as I wish it was, HB 1160 is NOT a true nullification bill. It’s a non-compliance or non-cooperation bill. The bill merely suggests that state and local employees and facilities can NOT be used to assist with an NDAA-style arrest or detention.

    But more to the point, last week one of our helpful allies was the Japanese American Citizens League. They wrote a passionate, open letter to the members of the Virginia Senate endorsing HB 1160. So I ask this next question, not with hyperbole, but with respect.

    I wonder if the Virginia Delegates had a chance, KNOWING WHAT THEY KNOW NOW, to stop the “internment” (kidnapping) of Japanese Americans, would they believe nullification was just and proper? Or would they…

    Cower to a Washington politician, like Frank Wolf, who threatens them like a mafia don?
    Echo the do-nothing attitude of Ms. Comstock, who says the civil liberties of people in Virginia is none of our business?
    What a bunch of wimps! The opposition to this bill is unworthy of the oaths they’ve sworn.

    But our concerns don’t end there. The Governor, Bob McDonnell, has his eye on the Vice Presidency. Through back channels he’s letting it be known that he doesn’t want to have to sign or veto this bill this year. Great Huh?

  54. 54
    Freedom Warrior Says:

    The 14 Senators Who Voted Against NDAA (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), Franken (D-MN), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Sanders (I-VT), Wyden (D-OR) (14 American Heroes)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zUAXtryR5o&feature=youtu.be

  55. 55
    Colorado Cowboy Says:

    What in the world gives them the right to FIELD 30,000 DRONES over America’s HOMELAND??? What’s next? Something has to be done. Obama’s BC has now been found to be a fraud.

    Why hasn’t he been taken into custody as a TRAITOR??? This insanity must stop!

  56. 56
    Freedom Warrior Says:

    John Adams Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

    [I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

  57. 57
    Mr. Peabody Says:

    Well heck! It’s time for another Oath Keepers liberty march. Just keep on marching until we finally get our liberty back! We’ll show them rascals!

  58. 58
    The Patriot Says:

    If State Represenatives try to kill NDAA S1867 on the state level, I’m afraid with the new jobs Bill that just passed, this Administration will not send Corperations to those states and starve them until the lose State Soverignity and are forced to take Fed monies. Just thinking out loud.

  59. 59
    kevin Wentz Says:

    I don’t understand why West Virginias representatives are not in this fight there are a lot of patriots in West Virginia we need to gwt involved.

Leave a Reply

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