Friday, July 5, 2013

Alaska Defeats NDAA?

What’s the greatest way to derail a movement?

While there are many ways, from discrediting the leadership to jailing the participants, there is one nearly surefire way to kill a political movement.

Pretend you fixed the problem.

On June 26th, 2013, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell signed HB69, a bill that, according to some, would “nullify” the detention provisions in the NDAA. It does nothing of the sort. Although it seems to demonstrate Alaska’s will to stand up for the liberty of its citizens, and tries to take on gun control as well, this law does nothing to protect the inalienable rights of the people.

Breaking it Down

HB69 has several problems inherent in the language, and neglects to address some of the main issues in the NDAA, such as:


1.      HB 69 only prohibits state agents from assisting in the violation of a person’s “due process,” which does not guarantee anything.

2.      HB 69 is not easily understood, and therefore not easily enforced.

3.      HB 69 does not prohibit federal agents from using the powers in the NDAA detention provisions.

4.      HB 69 does not require the state of Alaska to interpose and protect the rights of its citizens.

5.      HB 69 does not solve the root problem of the 2012 NDAA detention provisions.


The text of HB 69 relating to the NDAA detention provisions reads as follows:

“A state or municipal agency may not use or authorize the use of an asset to implement or aid in the implementation of a requirement of an order of the President of the United States, a federal regulation, or a law enacted by the United States Congress that is applied to…deny a person a right to due process, or a protection of due process, that would otherwise be available to the person under the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the Constitution of the United States.” (Emphasis added)

Firstly, Due Process has no singular meaning. On September 30, 2011, Anwar-Al-Awlaki, an American citizen merely accused of terrorism, was assassinated with a drone strike. After his death, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed he was given Due Process:

“Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

-Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General

For starters, the Constitution absolutely guarantees judicial process, as defined in Article III, Sec 2, Clause 3, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, and 8th Amendments, to name a few. However, the Attorney General makes an important point here.

According to Holder, in the interest of “national security,” Due Process does not mean an Article III trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the Obama administration and future administrations will be enforcing the 2012 NDAA, simply protecting “due process,” will do nothing to protect the rights of the people of Alaska, which leads us to a further point…

Alaska’s HB 69 will be difficult to enforce.

To the average peace officer, local official, or other state agent, it seems the Constitution already protects people against an infringement on their due process:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Emphasis added)

-U.S. Constitution, Amendment V

HB 69 offers no explanation of the language “deny a person a right to due process,” nor does it mention any specific piece of legislation or new guideline that seemingly violates the principle. HB 69 provides no reason, either in the description of the legislation or the law itself, for any person to pay special attention to the law.

Unlike the Restoring Constitutional Governance Act, which specifically names the attempted enforcement of “an authorization for use of military force, national defense authorization act” and the “laws of war” as possible red flags for peace officers and state agents, HB 69 does nothing of the sort. Thus, if it actually provided any protections to the citizens of Alaska, those protections would be very difficult to enforce.

Beyond being hard to understand and enforce, HB 69 only prohibits the Alaskan government from participating in violating the right to “due process,” it does not require them to uphold their Oaths to the Constitution when the Federal government does the very same thing.

Put simply, this bill emphasizes noncompliance instead of interposition.

The Oath of Office of the State of Alaska reads:

“"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as ________ to the best of my ability."

Support and defend are active, not passive terms. Both require action, one cannot uphold the Constitution by telling someone else to do it or standing back while it is violated. Since the detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA violate no less than 6 Amendments of the Bill of Rights, any state law should require its officers to interpose and protect the rights of the people. Anything less gives state agents that take the Oath a path to violate it. 

Even if protecting “due process” meant something, this does nothing to prevent the Federal government from violating that principle. With HB 69 doing nothing to stop them, a Federal agent, member of the U.S. Armed Forces, or other Federal asset could violate any person’s right to “due process” in the State of Alaska, while the state government can do nothing but sit and watch.

Noncompliance may be sufficient in some cases. When indefinite detention, rendition, and possible extrajudicial executions are on the line however, interposition is necessary. HB 69 fails to meet this crucial standard.

Finally, and perhaps most important, for a law that has been hailed as the end of indefinite detention in Alaska, it doesn’t even address the NDAA, the 2001 AUMF (the authorization that the NDAA expands on), or the laws of war. Nowhere in HB 69 is there any mention of indefinite detention, warrantless execution, or anything related to the problem.

The politicians who wrote this law don’t even seem to know what they are fighting.


HB 69 does nothing to protect the inalienable rights of the People of Alaska. It only restricts state agents from assisting in violating “Due Process,” which could include allowing warrantless assassination, is confusing and hard to enforce, and allows the state to stand down if the Federal government is violating the people’s rights and eviscerating the Constitution. Even worse, this law does not fix the root problem, the application of the laws of war to American soil, or even reference it in any way.

Laws like Alaska’s HB 69 should be referred to as “Warm and Fuzzy” legislation, since the only thing they accomplish is to give their supporters feelings of warmth and achievement. Worse still, HB 69 and laws like it give our elected officials a way to “clean their skirts” and get the people off their backs while still allowing the Federal government to eviscerate the Constitution.

HB 69 is a stark reminder: we must read any legislation our representatives claim will protect our rights. If not, they will pretend to fix the problem…and we will fall for it every single time. 

Review legislation that will actually fix the problem here:

Join the movement:

Donate to keep crucial information like this flowing:


Alaska Defeats NDAA?

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

This July 4th, let's Restore the Fourth








Dan Johnson


This July 4th, let’s Restore the Fourth


On December 15, 1791, ¾ of the states in a young America ratified the Bill of Rights. These 10 Amendments to the Constitution would serve as our guiding principles for nearly 200 years.

Too many of them, including the 4th Amendment, now lay in tatters.

Since January 2012, we have been one of the leading organizations in the fight against the 2012 NDAA, indefinite detention, and the application of the laws of war on American soil. Since our founding, People Against the NDAA (PANDA) has pushed to block the enforcement of the NDAA detention provisions in over 20 states and numerous municipalities across the country.

A crucial piece in the puzzle of government tyranny however, remained unsolved. The PATRIOT Act, warrantless surveillance, and unConstitutional searches play a key role in the enforcement of the 2012 NDAA, and have yet to suffer a serious grassroots challenge.

Now, a new organization is trying to change that.

Restore the Fourth is a nonviolent, nonpartisan group of political activists who aim to restore the Fourth Amendment, focusing on unConstitutional searches by our nation’s biggest spy agencies. On July 4th, 2013, they have launched a nationwide protest against these practices, and it has gained serious traction.

The protests have been picked up by the Huffington Post, Mashable, and The Blaze, and thousands of people are expected to attend in the biggest protest since the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

As the warrantless surveillance of people in the United States plays a key role in any indefinite detention, application of the laws of war, and the silencing of political dissent, PANDA is proud to support Restore the Fourth and the protests this independence day.

Under the rocket’s red glare, over 90 cities will protest against NSA surveillance, the NDAA, and stand shoulder-to-shoulder to begin a new phase in the battle for our Constitutional rights.

We stand with them, and America should do the same. This is the liberty bell, the call to action, and the trumpet.

Find your local protest here:


This July 4th, let's Restore the Fourth

Friday, June 28, 2013

Liberty Takes Another Blow on House Floor 200-226

In the fight for liberty, like all worthwhile battles, we win some, and we lose some. Though putting up a great fight and coming close to winning, the Constitution took a painful blow, when the Smith-Amash-Gibson Amendment, which would have ended the fight against the tyrannical provisions in the 2012 NDAA, failed in the House on June 13 with a vote of 226-200.

The Smith-Amash-Gibson Amendment would have voided the provisions provided in sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA  this year for the up and coming NDAA FY 2014. The two un-American sections provide for the indefinite military detention without trial or charge of anyone including Americans. It’s defeat was practically a party-line vote, with mostly Republicans voting against repealing the two sections.


Though it was to be expected that the bill would not pass in either the House or the Senate, we would like to take a moment to thank those who are standing up for us and our Constitutional right to liberty. And conversely, to point out those whose irreverence for their oath of office and whose complete disregard for the well-being of “we the people” allowed for this treasonous vote against us.  


A big round of applause to Reps Gibson, Amash, and Smith for their stand on the Constitution, as well as the rest of the 200 Representatives who stood up for liberty and rule of Constitutional law.


Please take a moment out of your day to check out who the Representatives are that stood up for you and your rights, and thank them, letting them know how important this issue is to you. Note, too, who voted against the principles on which this country was founded, and let them know your disappointment.


We may have lost the battle, but the fight is not over yet.



-Raphaelle O’Neil

Liberty Takes Another Blow on House Floor 200-226

Thursday, June 20, 2013

PANDA and Oath Keepers Attacked by Coos County, Oregon Newspaper: PANDA Under Fire

As the saying goes “if you ain’t got no haters, you ain’t doin nothin,” when you stick your head above the crowd and fight for liberty and freedom, you will come under fire. Usually, we don’t bother responding. As the leading organization in the country fighting the 2012 NDAA, it’s not worth our time, your energy, and our resources.

This time, it’s different.

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), subsections 1021 and 1022 authorizes the President or his subordinate to accuse anyone on U.S. soil of being a terrorist, incarcerate them, forbid them trial or access to an attorney, and send them to a foreign prison.

In Coos County, Oregon, the struggle against these provisions began when Oath Keepers S.W. Oregon Coordinator Tom McKirgan spoke to the county commission in October, 2012 and February, 2013. He, along with members of PANDA, made the case for anti-NDAA resolution on April 2, May 7, and once more with a passionate outpouring of support on June 4. Unfortunately, two of the three Commissioners, despite their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, refuse to allow a vote.

A Coos County paper, The World, not only leveled personal attacks against the people of PANDA and Oath Keepers, but also denounced local action against the 2012 NDAA, saying “county officials obviously have no authority over federal law”.

This is entirely incorrect. Not only did the states and “We the People” create the Federal government, and therefore have the power to change and correct it, but each and every Commissioner takes an Oath of Office to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The Coos County Commissioners are, right now, deciding whether or not to honor their Oath. The World seems to think the “commissioners have more than enough problems of their own” without engaging in job one, protecting our rights.

The Coos County Commission will read this op-ed. We need to flood the comment section with support for the Commissioners passing an Anti-NDAA resolution to protect the rights of the people of Coos County.

Are you with us?

Comment NOW:

They spoke plainly what they thought of us. Feel free to return the favor.

Also, if you are in Oregon, there will be a massive anti-NDAA town hall in Coos County on July 15th, the day before the legislation is again presented to the county commission. As that day approaches, PANDA will post an action alert detailing how you can get involved.

Other World articles on the NDAA are accurate:

Fight alongside PANDA and defend our God-given, unalienable liberties, join us:

Oath Keepers is another fine organization, committed to defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic:

by Ed R. Green

PANDA and Oath Keepers Attacked by Coos County, Oregon Newspaper: PANDA Under Fire

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Justice Department Refuses to Release Interpretation of NDAA

In April of 2012, Matt Ehling, President of Public Record Media, LLC, made a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Obama Administration's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which is part of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Ehling requested the administration's legal opinions and notes about subsections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which are the parts of the NDAA involved in much public controversy and litigation since 2001. The FOIA mandates the OLC respond within twenty days.

At first, the OLC said they would not respond in the time period allowed because of all the other requests for information made to them, but would reply as soon as possible. Ehling asked how long that might be. They said maybe in a few months, but couldn't guarantee it. When questioned further, the OLC refused to comply with the FOIA at all. They said they were exempt, citing the administration's opinions were “protected by the deliberative process privilege”, and “not appropriate for discretional release”. On the surface, these two excuses seem more plausible than “We're too busy”, but on closer inspection, this claim also violates the FOIA.

Exemptions to the FOIA are specific. To qualify as an exemption, the material must be both “deliberative” and “pre-decisional”. The deliberative process is similar to private conversations protected under attorney-client privilege in a court case. Pre-decisional refers to discussions which take place before a case is concluded or a law is enacted. However, Ehling only requested post-decisional information, that is, material after the NDAA was passed, material which determines how the law will be carried out. Therefore, since the information requested was not both deliberative and pre-decisional, the OLC's objection is invalid. As OLC attorneys specialize in this area of law, they knew this all along.

The OLC also claims that material in the 2012 NDAA subsections 1021 and 1022 is not appropriate for release. Under those two subsections, President Obama and all future presidents can accuse anyone of being a terrorist, incarcerate them, deny them trial, forbid them access to council and send them to a foreign prison. It is not only appropriate, but essential that U.S. citizens and anyone visiting this country know how the government plans to use this law. That the government is forbidden from developing “secret laws” has been upheld in court.

What is so damning in the Obama administration files that the OLC is willing to violate the law to hide them? They must obey the law, specifically, the FOIA.

As Obama's Department of Justice has frequently refused to comply with legally binding requests for information, other questions comes to mind.

Does the DOJ consider the concept of obeying the law tiresome? Do they consider themselves above the law? Since the crafters of the NDAA seem to consider the Constitution an annoyance, this would be consistent behavior.

If you would like to see Ehling's appeal, go to


–by Ed R. Green


Justice Department Refuses to Release Interpretation of NDAA

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Albany, NY Mayoral Candidate Vows to Fight NDAA


   The Constitution was written to restrain the government and make sure that every citizen was afforded due process of law, a fair trial, and the protection of their natural rights.

   The National Defense Authorization act of 2012 codifies into law indefinite military detention without charge or trial. It assures that the executive branch can act with no checks or balances from any other branch of the Federal Government. It is an urgent warning to all of us that we must take our country back by forcing our legislators to act appropriately, or replacing them with those who will. Those who profit from war would gladly seek to make every inch of this earth into a battleground, and every human other than themselves into collateral damage.

   It is our duty to ourselves, our families, and our neighbors, to fight this unjust law and restore our executive branch to its proper limitation.  Groups like People Against the National Defense Authorization Act are motivated, organized, and energized and I respect and admire the work that they are doing, and I intend to assist them in their efforts.

Amplify the People,

Jesse Calhoun

Albany, NY Mayoral Candidate Vows to Fight NDAA

Sunday, May 26, 2013

PANDA Educates at Old Timer’s Day Festival in Van Buren, Arkansas

On Saturday, May 11 and Sunday, May 12 of 2013, members of the Arkansas state PANDA team conducted street outreach operations to reveal truths surrounding the unconstitutional and inhumane aspects of the 2012 NDAA in downtown Van Buren, Arkansas, at the Old Timer's Day Festival, by talking with citizens and passing out written information.

The festival featured music, arts and crafts, and various types of entertainment on the city’s Historic Main Street. More than 200 exhibitors from seven states were present at this festival.

Arkansas PANDA state team leader Levonne Gryder reports success in recruiting new members and that a significant amount of information was distributed to citizens at this event.

Additionally, members of the John Birch society are thanked for directing citizens to the PANDA team members to discuss the indefinite detention clauses in the 2012 NDAA.

Much thanks to PANDA Arkansas for educating countless numbers of people about the violations to liberty which are embodied the 2012 NDAA.

More information about the indefinite detention clauses in the 2012 NDAA can be found at


PANDA Educates at Old TimerĂ¢€™s Day Festival in Van Buren, Arkansas