What every state needs to do: Montanans launch recalls of Senators who voted for NDAA

(Photo credit: campaign to recall Congressman who voted for the NDAA via Facebook)

In response to the traitorous actions of 86 senators who voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, commonly referred to as the NDAA, Montanans have announced a recall campaign against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester.

As I have previously outlined, the fact that the NDAA allows for the indefinite detention without charge or trial of American citizens is simply irrefutable.

Therefore, every single one of our so-called representatives who voted for this atrocious legislation is in direct violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution and thus are actively working against us – the American people.

Thankfully, some people are already taking action, as we see in the cases of the Montana recall effort and Representative Jeff Landry who introduced an amendment (after voting for the NDAA with detention provisions intact) which would protect Americans’ right to due process.

 

Read Article Here…

  • S. Riley

    Re: Multi-State Recall Petition of Congressman who voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT / consider the following:

    Is the Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012) More Threatening to Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS) That Suspended Provisions In the Reich Constitution That Protected German Citizens’ Civil liberties? If the answer is “Yes” Congress has passed Fascist Legislation.

    Compare: Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY DECREES stated time limits that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security; note that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s passed National Defense Authorization Act—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody, even for being a mere “Belligerent.” Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. U.S. Government can now arbitrarily deem anyone a “Belligerent.” Compare below The NAZI Government 1933 Decrees with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Under the passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could some Americans be (Retroactively) subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider that most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated have done in the past—perhaps illegal.

    Alarmingly both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are broadly vague—what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting or aiding terrorists; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act.

    History Repeats Itself: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared, and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention.

    Is The Defense Authorization Act Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of passed NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) have in the past supported or aided terrorists; provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT!

    It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention. Compare below: Hitler’s Laws that might appear mild when set side by side with the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.
    GERMANY Preliminary Compilation of Selected Laws, Decrees, and Regulations:

    DISCRIMINATORY LAWS:

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reich marks.

    Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6

    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President
    Reich Chancellor
    Reich Minister of the Interior                                                                          Reich Minister of Justice

  • http://www.facebook.com/susan.j.barretta Susan J. Barretta

    This is what concerned citizens in every state need to do – review the recall process and work to make it easier to boot the terrorists out of Congress.

  • Anonymous

    This is a clear case of locking the barn door after the horse has escaped.  Would be better to get the State Houses to pass state legislation to nullify the offensive provisions of the NDAA.  I have written a letter to my Texas State rep urging him to author such legislation.  Texas almost  nullified the invasive procedures employed by the TSA at airports.  Our pusillanimous governor backed down however. 

    • natural rights

      That’s probably true, the 10th amendment is the way to stop them once the federal government has passed a crazy law that removes our natural rights.

    • Anonymous

      Too bad Medina didn’t win

b9sJxqr097Kgo
%d bloggers like this: