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.

 

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll228.xml

 

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

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:  http://theworldlink.com/news/opinion/editorial/county-should-mind-own-business/article_6b3deee4-d1eb-11e2-b384-0019bb2963f4.html

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:

http://theworldlink.com/news/local/coos-county-oath-keepers-target-bill-that-allows-american-detainees/article_857df1a6-cdfd-11e2-a485-001a4bcf887a.html

http://theworldlink.com/opinion/letters/unite-to-oppose-dangerous-law/article_cf5d1dfa-cff2-11e2-aa81-001a4bcf887a.html

Fight alongside PANDA and defend our God-given, unalienable liberties, join us: www.pandaunite.org

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

by Ed R. Green

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

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 http://www.publicrecordmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FOIAOLC20122_pd_011.pdf

 

–by Ed R. Green

 

Justice Department Refuses to Release Interpretation of NDAA

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

calhounformayor@gmail.com
facebook.com/calhounformayor

Albany, NY Mayoral Candidate Vows to Fight NDAA