December 30th, 2012

Congressman Huelskamp Rejects The 2013 NDAA


tim_huelskamp

This article was written by Richard D. Fry of the PANDA Legal Team

Once again Congressman Tim Huelskamp voted against a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The 2013 NDAA is the 51st such bill to be passed by Congress. Its purpose is to authorize funding for programs and the military that support our national security policy.

In 2012 the NDAA was 1844 pages and this year it was over 1100 pages. The House passed its version of the 2013 NDAA in May. The Senate did not pass its version until December.  So like last year, there was a mad scramble to get it finalized, – the funding of the military hanging in the balance.

The 2013 NDAA was for $640.7 billion (640,700,000,000.00), there were grave concerns expressed last year by members of Congress , watchdog groups  and grass roots groups over the constitutionality of the citizen detention provisions of the bill and a New York federal District Court in September found these provisions to be unconstitutional. Yet, the Senate floor debate of the 2013 NDAA Conference Report, which will ultimately be sent to the President later this month, lasted about one (1) hour.

The NDAA 2012 did not just authorize funding for national security policy. It established new policy by greatly expanding the September 18, 2001 “Declaration of War” that resulted from the 9 11 attacks.

Members from Kansas’ Congressional delegation Mike Pompeo (an attorney), Kevin Yoder (an attorney) and Lynn Jenkins voted for both the 2012 and the 2013 NDAAs. Last year Jenkins sent a joint letter to the conference committee which said the citizen detention provision of the bill were unconstitutional and requesting their removal. The committee did not remove the unconstitutional provisions. Yet, Jenkins voted for the bill she had previous said was unconstitutional. She admitted this to a 912 group at the Kansan Grill in Topeka on Friday the 13th of January, 2012, and explained her action by saying “I thought the Supreme Court would straighten it out.”

I spoke to the offices of our Congressional delegations and to Yoder personally. Each argued that these provisions did not apply to citizens.   I offered to fly to Washington with the legal team of the Patriot Coalition and Oath Keepers that had been assembled as part of their joint project in response to NDAA, The Intolerable Acts. One of the attorneys was Stewart Rhodes a former paratrooper and Yale Law School grad who specialized in the application of the Law of War to citizens, while at Yale. No takers.

Last summer Yoder told a group in Johnson County that he “did not want to extend Constitutional rights to terrorists who had snuck into our country to do us harm” as justification for voting against the Smith – Amash amendment that would have corrected some but not all the constitutional problems.   It is well-settled law that most of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to all persons in the U.S. whether they are citizens, visiting foreign nationals, or illegal aliens. So what he was saying in reality is he believes Congress has the power to take away constitutional rights from some people.

The actions of Pompeo and Yoder tell me we have a crisis in our law schools regarding teaching the Constitution.

In the last two years Rep. Jenkins introduced 17 bills, 5 of which related to the shoe industry. An example is HR 2697 The Affordable Footwear Act of 2011.  (Congressman Yoder co-sponsored this bill as did Pompeo.) Was Rep. Jenkins friends with former Philippine Dictator Ferdindand Marcos’ wife, Imelda, who had over 3,000 pairs of shoes? Will her excuses for violating her oath be any more ridiculous? Perhaps, thanks to Jenkins, Yoder, and Pompeo we can look forward to pacing back and forth in comfortable shoes during our indefinite detention. Our constitutional rights would be better served if she was working in the shoe department of Payless Shoes and Yoder and Pompeo were working on the K Street Project.

Come on people! Only one of our elected legislators, Tim Huelskamp, was and is fighting for our Liberty. And when I say that, considering the NDAA, I mean it literally!

These guys are a threat and danger to our Liberty and our Republic. They do not support the same fundamental principles we hold so dear for ourselves and our children, namely to be left alone by our government. They are supporting  and protecting  a law which allows the President on a mere suspicion that we are “terrorist” to have the military indefinitely detain us  without an arrest warrant, without an attorney, without  showing us the “evidence” against us or being allowed to confront witnesses against us,  or to have a trial by our fellow citizens.  We declared our independence from England over such abuse. Perhaps it is time we declare our independence from these guys before we lose that ability.

These guys are going to be home over Christmas break. Write them and call them and go see them in person and ask them what the hell they think they are doing to us. Remind them you are the boss and this dangerous, subversive conduct, which is treason to the Constitution, is no longer acceptable.  This is not only your duty, it is imperative to your Liberty. If you do not act, history will remember America as that great Republic blessed with the greatest freedom and Liberty that died from apathy, and political correctness.




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.

2 Responses to “Congressman Huelskamp Rejects The 2013 NDAA”

  1. 1
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Some relevant links:

    The Truth Behind the 2013 NDAA- Part 1: The Feinstein/Lee Amendment
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGcyatZt-A

    Understanding The 2013 NDAA: Part 2- Section 1029
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6LPl0u9LlE

  2. 2
    jackie Says:

    USA government S.O.B.

Leave a Reply

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