Political Requirements: Expert liar and profane sarcasm

 

In the age of modern technology, one has come to understand that anything we say or do, can
be easily verified and documented, by the simple click of the mouse. Our Republican form of government has been “of the people, by the people, and for the people” since it’s inception. Despite the hope of our Founding Fathers, it didn’t take long after the formation of our Nation, that political parties started to form.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned the nation that the spirit of a political party serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. From our country’s inception, we formed compromises between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists. It was then, that started the divide of the people into political parties.

Fast forward to modern-day America. Our Nation is in a state of divide between the radical right and liberal left, with the more sensible middle, being the so-called “Liberty Movement.” These folks have been mocked and ridiculed in the most sardonic manner. During the 2012 Presidential elections, one would have thought that the Republicans would welcome, with open arms, the amount of young people that were clambering to the party; It was quite the opposite actually. Nevertheless, most people within the “Liberty Movement” have been turned off to political parties, in search of a place that will accept them, with open arms. Some went the direction of Anarchists, some went the route of Anarcho-Capitalism, but there are a lot of us that decided to stay. We stayed because we saw hope. The hope that we can redirect the Republican Party back to its core principles of Freedom, Prosperity, Vision, Strength, and Future. That seems to be something they like to boast about on the National GOP website.

Whether it’s on the National, State or Local level, people have come to expect political parties to be fair and consistent. I started getting involved in politics after my enlistment was over and I moved back to my hometown. To my astonishment, I came home to find my county to be completely swamped in debt, to the tune of $96 million dollars. This prompted me to look deeper into the reasoning behind this debt. In my quest to find the source, I began to see a trend. Every single person on the local Board of Commissioners has always ran on the Republican ticket. I found this completely ironic, in that, anytime you hear the name “Republican,” you also hear the word “Conservative” that is quick to follow. How can one claim to be a “conservative” whilst taking out loans, in the name of the citizens that they claim to represent?

The Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian Parties are indeed semi-private organizations. This brings me to my next point.

In a meeting that was held by the Republican Women of Forsyth County (RWFC), Citizen Journalst, Nydia Tisdale (www.aboutforsyth.com) was triple-teamed in a show of intimidation by Peggy Green, Carla Radzikinas, and Carolyn Hall Fisher on April 16, 2014. In the video you can clearly see what appears to be three women conspiring to have Tisdale kicked out of the venue. A few moments later, Tisdale was approached by the trio, and demanded that she leave the restaurant. Keep in mind, the RWFC has published this event as “Open to the Public” on their website as well as on Forsyth County News. According to Tisdale, “Contrary to statements by Peggy Green — Norman’s Landing owner Bill Norman, did NOT ask me to leave. He said that they don’t want you to record. Guest speaker candidate Susan Zereini said that she wanted me to record. Mr. Norman told us to work it out — he was busy running his restaurant and did not want to get in the middle of it.”

Then, the TRUE motive of the trio is made known, acting as the spokeswoman for the group, Green states:

“Will you turn off the camera please, you’re not wanted here.”

further stating,

“We do not like your tactics; we do not like your strong, attack, tactics (sic) so please leave; or we will go get Norman and he will personally escort you out”

Now comes Fisher (VP of the FCRW and 2nd Vice Chair of the FCRP) : “This is just a women’s group” interrupted by Radzikinas who says “This is not an official group, its a women’s gathering”

Again, Tisdale reiterates that it was on their official website as “OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

And wouldn’t you know it, Green didn’t like what Tisdale had to say and say’s… Ready for this?  “So sue us, you can’t stay…

FCRW

In a bitter fit of rage, Green then goes on to assault Tisdale, by hitting her on her arm and grabbing at her camera, as if to try and snatch it off of the tri-pod.

 

Is this what being part of the Republican Party or its affiliates is all about?

Evidently so and here’s why I say that…

Below is letter sent to Tisdale, by the Chairman of the Forsyth County Republican Party:

From: Bradley Wilkins
To: Nydia Tisdale
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Subject: Recent video posts on Face book‏ (sic)

Nydia,

Based on your continued social media posting of video’s selectively edited for political purposes, I no longer view your body of work as Journalism.

Going forward, I will consider your video and writing efforts to be political activism and not journalism. As such, I will not grant you the same access to Forsyth County Republican Party Meetings that I offer to journalists.

Please consider this a formal request to refrain from videoing or recording any meetings of the Forsyth County Republican Party.

Thank you.

Brad Wilkins
Chairman
Forsyth County Republican Party
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

In keeping with the spirit of the Republican Women of Forsyth County, Wilkins decided to sucker punch Tisdale, as well. Adding insult to injury, he states “Going forward, I will consider your video and writing efforts to be political activism and not journalism. As such, I will not grant you the same access to Forsyth County Republican Party Meetings that I offer to journalists.”

Bradley.Wilkins_Chairman_Forsyth.County.Georgia.Republican.Party_06-21-2014Not only do these people think that they can assault you, but they also think that they get to decide who/what journalism is. In a show of bigotry, Wilkins states he will consider her video and writing efforts as “political activism and not journalism.” It’s a shame that someone who considers himself to be a “Conservative” and has taken the leadership role of the Republican Party of Forsyth County, thinks that HIS decision completely nullifies the 1st Amendment as well as the many Supreme Court rulings that protect this inalienable right. As far as I’m concerned, activism comes in MANY different shapes and forms, to include being the Chairman of the local Boys and Girls Club, also known as the Republican Party. So, does this mean that Bradley is going to ban himself and his cohorts from attending their own meetings? Or does it mean that The Forsyth County Republican Party is only going to allow you to receive the information that THEY want you to hear?

You know, the same kind of controlled media that took place in Nazi Germany or the “Speak No Evil” Communist China. Lets be honest here, if you’re going to censor one but allow others, is that not exactly what you’re replicating, Bradley?

The moral of the story is this: All too often we hear the folks of both parties stating how they want to attract “young folks” to be on their team. On the surface, that sounds amazing but as you start digging into this “social club” they don’t want you to be a part of this club at all! Its merely a sad attempt at trying to appear as though they all want to fight for the rights and freedoms. If you have a differing opinion, you’re shut out. If you don’t follow the orders of the elders, you don’t belong and if you actually hold the values of the Republican Party, to a higher moral standard, well, that’s just totally unacceptable. Don’t you ever try to hold the very people that get to choose your delegates, alternate delegates, nominee’s to elected office to a higher moral standard. You will be locked out and labeled as an activist. Apparently, being an activist is now being held to the same equivalency as a “domestic terrorist.” After all, it IS the Republican Party that condoned the dismantling of your basic, Constitutional Rights, à la “The Patriot Act, Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

 

 

                               UPDATE

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Apparently, Tisdale has pressed charges in this case of Green committing simple battery against her at the event posted above.
Below is the audio from an investigator from the Forsyth County Sheriffs Office. Note the third video (Sorry, it wont link directly to the page like the others no matter how hard I try) of the owner, Mr. Norman. His story is quiet different than the story of Green when she decided to start acting like a spoiled little child who was just told “NO, you CANNOT have any candy” by her mother. Peggy, you aren’t helping the perception of the Republican Party these days. Might I recommend you leave this side of you at home, tucked away from the prying eyes of the general public from now on?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMcPbiNd_mA&list=UU29-afi-T27Bc2rpj4Y7c4g&index=7

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM “DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE” IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE. By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

I wanted to post this article by Mr. Jack McLamb for the education/debate surrounding your “Right to Travel” and the government turning your basic right of movement from a right into a privileged.

The interesting verdict in this article is that, it is backed with multiple case law citations.

In 2011, Georgia Representative, Bobby Franklin (R), introduced a bill “Right to Travel Act” which would have essentially made drivers licenses for residents in the state, obsolete.

The bill stated:

11 (1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and
12 highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers
13 cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires
14 the surrender of an inalienable right;

Aslo,

21 (3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of
22 Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate
23 these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a
24 crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this
25 exercise of constitutional rights;

So, I question you: Why have we allowed our government to run our lives into slavery, without a fight?

________________________________________________________________________________

 

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

 

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 – “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”

This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e – it is Unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be – If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as – licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of  Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”
“the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point – that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Iimitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

– Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime”.)

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”. – ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are “Executive Officers”.

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the “letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are –

#1 – by lawfully amending the constitution,

or #2 – by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

“…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the “right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue In these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).

#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract only”.)

We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between “Privileges vs. Rights”.

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. “laws of no effect”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.“

OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”

What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn “Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, “SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”

Every police officer should keep the following court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to “mandatory licensing, registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel unencumbered”:

“THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME.” – Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

America Under Siege

NDAA

To what extent do you fear out of control government? Are you among those who see the overstepping of a tyrannical administration, or are you not aware of the world beyond what occurs in our own life? Regardless of your character type, do you ever consider that today just might be your last day? Or that it just might be at the hands of a ruthless tyrant by the title President of the United States?

Truth be told, whether that tyrant is this president or another down the line, the doorway for expulsion from this country is open and levied by one person: the POTUS. With directives and Acts paving the way of the future for our leaders to have the upper hand in all matters, the lives of every human being on this soil falls on the whim of a President. Thusly, it is the duty of every human being on this soil to wake up and get active.

In a Washington Times article that was released last week, the article outlines a 2010 directive that created presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest. The directive, at first glance, seems to be indifferent than any other directive that comes out of the Department of Defense. That is, until you dig a little deeper into the directive, that’s when you start to scratch our head.

In section 4 (a) the directive reads:

“This Directive shall be implemented consistent with national security objectives and military readiness.”

3(i) then goes on to state:

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law (e.g., chapter 15 of Reference (d)) or permitted under emergency authority, as described below (see DoDD 3025.12 (Reference (j)) and DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))

In 2012, the National Defense Authorization Act (N.D.A.A.) was signed into law. This was the infamous bill which contained Sections. 1021 and 1022 that authorized Congress to work in conjunction with the FISA Courts to determine whether someone is a “Domestic Terrorist” and what actions the Federal Government should take against them.  Deep within the N.D.A.A. is Section 1021 and 1022, is where we run into the “Counter-terrorism” sections of the bill. [Title X, Subtitle D] the authorization for the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, although the ability to indefinitely detain an individual has been in place since 2002.

The  Authorization for Use of Military Forces (AUMF) was signed into law under the Bush administration. In 2012, congress vested the power within themselves to “affirm” this power within themselves. In July of 2012, a study was conducted by the University of Maryland and partly paid for by the Department of Homeland Security, titled “National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism,” S.T.A.R.T. for short.

In their study, on pages 9 and 10, they listed the various “groups” in which would be considered “suspect” of being homegrown terrorists. These groups are referred to as “Dominant Ideologies” and include the following: Extreme Left – Wing, Extreme Right – Wing, Religious, Ethno-nationalist/Separatist  and Single Issue persons. In other words, everyone within the United States that might decide to redress their grievances with their government.

If you’re keeping up, the short of it is that the government just granted itself the right to be unconstitutional by detaining citizens that fit the government’s stereotype of home-grown bad guys; and further, can use the military (including drones) to squash supposed “threats”… to “national security.”

According to an article by the Washington Times released May 28, 2014, the latter was the very proposition put before the President regarding the “event” at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville, NV.

“A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered  but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.”

 

While PANDA does not take an official stance on The Bundy Ranch incident, the evidence is clear as to what extreme the Federal Government is willing to go.

Perhaps if you don’t already, you should start counting your blessings every day that by the good graces of a tyrant you weren’t massacred for someone’s stereotyping you.

Despite the extreme effort that was taken by the militias on the ground to maintain peace, prominent members of the government, including Harry Reid, want to suggest that the actions that occurred in the desert of Bunkerville were at the hands of a chaotic group of “domestic terrorists“ threatening the national security. Other officials even negated the threat that the BLM initiated against citizens; for example: pushing people to the ground and pointing weapons at them. The very charges being rumored against members of the militia for standing up for the rights of his fellow man.

Although no weapons were fired, although no injuries (to the BLM or law enforcement, at least) were sustained, although no threats were ever made against the BLM or officers… This directive and Act came across the desk of the President as an option against American citizens who were standing up for their rights. Fortunately, he declined.

Thank, Obama Almighty, today those people will live to see another day. Tomorrow? Well, we’ll see.

See, the problem is not who the President is. The problem is that this is a power vested upon whoever the President is at the time. The N.D.A.A. is one of those evolutionary documents. The kind that the government loves, because they can alter it over and over again; taking, little by little, the rights of the nation, until finally, we can’t fight back and we’re ripe for the crushing.

Even if you don’t want to believe something like that would or could ever happen, you have to acknowledge the power is there, and eventually someone will test those waters. It’s inevitability, or they would not have adopted such legislation.

Article by: Jason Turner and Sabrina Black of www.zeninthecar.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.D.A.A. headed to the Senate. Who voted for it?

NDAA

 

ATLANTA, GA. – Government Bill H.R. 4435 (N.D.A.A) for Fiscal Year 2015 has overwhelmingly passed the House (325 – 98) and is headed for the Senate. In a weird turn of events, every member of Congress for the State of Georgia, with the exception of Congressman John Lewis (D), voted in favor of this bill.

H.R. 4435 is riddled big government spending to the tune of $602 billion and a continuation of the war effort in Afghanistan until FY2018.

In what seemed like a “no-brainer” (based on what we know from congressional members seeking higher office, each of them vehemently opposing this legislation), every congressman in the State of Georgia voted for this bill – with the exception of Congressman John Lewis.

In an interview with Congressman Paul Broun before the Savannah debate, he stated that the indefinite detention provisions were not in the 2014 N.D.A.A. and he was correct.

So, why am I attacking Broun? It’s simple: He made himself out to be a staunch opponent of just about anything N.D.A.A. I am here to prove that his assertions of opposition and my assertion of opposition are two very different things.

The previsions are in the Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF), which was created under George W. Bush. However, in 2012, Broun voted for H.R. 4310 N.D.A.A. 2012, which contained sections 1021 and 1022 in which Congress vested the power in themselves to authorize the indefinite detention of an American Citizen without due process of the law. Now that the bill has been changed, congress relinquished this power back to the president – and the N.D.A.A. only “upholds current law”, that being the AUMF.

So, the next time you hear anyone say that the N.D.A.A. doesn’t allow for the indefinite detention of American Citizens, you can call them out on their nonsense. You are now armed with the verifiable truth that the provisions remain, only in the hands of the President and the FISA courts.

In Section 1075, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act is again brought up, with continued authorization to allow the testing of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or as we like to call them, drones. Thanks to the 2012 N.D.A.A., congress mandated that 35,000 drones be integrated into our national airspace, by 2015.

In the North Georgia Mountains, Gilmer County residents fought back against the Federal Government and the private sector from taking control of the counties airport, preventing it from being used as a drone testing facility. Thanks to the late, Commissioner Randy Bell, the opposition to this program was successful in denying the State of Georgia, Georgia Tech Research Institute and Federal Government from obtaining the authorization by the Board of Commissioners to use their facility for such programs. However, the bill remains and they have moved on to other areas of the nation where they don’t need permission to use the lands in which they conduct the data-link testing.

One very important issue pertaining to this bill is found in Section 1216:

United States plan for sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces through the end of fiscal year 2018

Yes, you read that right. We are continuing the war effort in Afghanistan until FY2018. Contingency operations will continue for a very long time. American lives will continue to be lost and innocent men, women and children will continue to die via drone warfare.

We at zeninthecar will update you on the status of the bill as it moves through the Senate.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Many thanks to Shelia Aliens for the help editing this article! Be sure to visit her YouTube account and subscribe!

Video’s from above:

[su_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInYnV9Edcg”]

Zen interviews Congressman Paul Broun

[su_vimeo url=”https://vimeo.com/64638500″]

Commissioner Randy Bell (RIP Good fellow) meeting with Steve Justice over drones in Gilmer County.

H.R. 4435 (NDAA 2015) House Rules Committee Hearing

WASHINGTON– On Monday, May 19th, a hearing in the House Rules Committee was held pertaining to H.R. 4435, (National Defense Authorization Act, 2015) as Chairman Pete Sessions began with the introduction and opening remarks. Congressman McKeon, a retiring Republican Representative of California’s 25th District, was allowed to take to the mic and lay out an overview of what would be later seen as a bill of damning numbers and even more setbacks. In his opening statement, Mr. McKeon made mention of the cost of H.R. 4435, to the tune of $521 Billion allocated for National Defense and $79 Billion for overseas contingency, consistent with the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement. Mr. McKeon noted that there were 195 amendments offered (100 by the Republican’s and 95 by Democrats) of which 154 were adopted. The N.D.A.A. was passed out of committee with a unanimous 61-0 vote. McKeon noted that the bill would increase troop pay as well as the continued war effort in Afghanistan. In an attempt to broaden the bill, it was met with a setback. The Budget Control Act and the lack of resources stand in the way of the expansions that are included into this bill. According to McKeon,

“My principle that I have tried to stick to this year, in pushing forward, is, to Save as much as we could. We were given a budget by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s that cut more than we cut. What I’m hoping for next year (hopefully) we’ll do something about sequestration -Get something we can work with- better. Otherwise, next year is going to be very, VERY difficult.”

Congressman and Ranking Member Adam Smith, echoed Mr. McKeon on many of the major key points throughout his opening statements,

“…Continues to fund our troops who are still at war in Afghanistan. What I really like about this bill is that it recognizes that our challenges, right now, are primarily from terrorism and asymmetric warfare, therefore, prioritizes the Special Operations Command and also Cyber Security Threat. ” 

Although the two members echoed one another on many of the details surrounding the defense budgetary burden laid out before them, it seemed as though they were both willing to pull from one, account to save the other. Smith noted that the administration put forward a series of changes, which includes the BRAC Amendment, which would continue to close bases within the United States when the legislation hits the chamber floor. They have also made reduction in certain compensation, as well as lay up 11 ships and discontinue the A-10 Warthog as well as rearrange the National Guard and Reserve issues.

“…for the most part, they got rid of those changes and found the money, creatively, for 2015. The problem is, it creates a bow wave. 2016/2017, we’re not going to be able to do that.

By “creatively” one only has to listen a few more seconds on the hearing to understand exactly what is about to happen. As Smith put it,

“The problem with that is, it creates a bow wave”

Yet again, we are patching a hole in the side of the ship, with cotton balls. If it is unsustainable and you can identify this, well before the implementation, why are we even considering the option? Smith also suggested if we don’t like the cuts made by the administration, we’re going to have to put up alternatives and its worth noting that the administration asked for an additional $28 Billion that they didn’t get. Offering up two amendments, BRAC and an amendment to lay up 11 cruisers and 3 amphibious ships, Smith suggested,

 “If we want eleven carriers, we’ve gotta save money somewhere.” 

All of this on the heels of the President making an impromptu visit to Afghanistan on Sunday evening. He stopped by Bagram Air Field with a “mission” to thank the members of the Armed Services deployed in support of the operations of the ongoing war effort in Afghanistan. As the debate heats up over the budget and over the implementation of one of the most despicable legislation’s in modern history, just short  of The Enabling Act, passed by Hitler in 1933 followed by the Reichstag Fire Decree, so goes the N.D.A.A.  These bills were passed in Germany with little to no resistance and virtually no public outcry. History has a weird way of repeating itself. Zen will stay on top of this story as it develops and you will be the first to receive notification of any and all changes that take place. Until then, keep your head up and your heart open. We haven’t lost this battle just yet.

DOMESTIC TERRORISTS… WHAT’S IT’S ORIGIN?

Over the last few weeks, you have heard the term “Domestic Terrorist” in the media by Senator Harry Reid, when speaking about the supporters of Mr. Cliven Bundy.

One would ask thy self, what exactly is a domestic terrorist and why did Mr. Reid coin the term when speaking about these individuals?

Let me give you a history lesson about this very subject. Keep in mind, I am ONLY speaking about the N.D.A.A. of 2012. (I will get into the N.D.A.A. of 2014, which is a total BEAST within itself, in another article.)

On December 14th, 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representative. The bill was subsequently sent to the U.S. Senate where it was voted on and passed The bill landed on the President’s desk and was signed (quietly on New Years Eve) into law on December 31, 2011.

There are MANY issues that I could cover on this topic, however, we are going to stay on the one issue that has been presented at present.

Deep within the N.D.A.A. is Section 1021 and 1022, is where we run into the “Counter-terrorism” sections of the bill. [Title X, Subtitle D] Within this, is  the authorization for the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil.

The AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) already authorizes the President to indefinitely detain an individual, so why would we need this added into the N.D.A.A? Because of one very small word with a very big definition. The N.D.A.A. now states that CONGRESS  affirms this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

Your definition of Affirm is different than Black’s Law Dictionary of the word.

 Black’s Law Dictionary:

Affirm:  To ratify, make firm, confirm, establish, reassert. To ratify or confirm a former law or judgment. Cowell. In the practice of appellate courts, to affirm a judgment, decree, or order, is to declare that it is valid and right, and must stand as rendered below; to ratify and reassert it; to I concur in its correctness and confirm its efficacy. In pleading. To allege or aver a matter of fact; to state it affirmatively; the opposite of deny or traverse. . In practice. To make an affirmation; to  make a solemn and formal declaration or asseveration that an affidavit is true, that the witness will tell the truth, etc.. this being substituted for an oath in certain cases. Also, to give testimony on affirmation. In the law of contracts. A party is said to affirm a contract the same being voidable at his election, when he ratifies and accepts it, waives his right to annul it, and proceeds under it as if it had been valid ^ originally.

So, what just happened there? Well, congress vested the power in themselves to bypass the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution and took the President out of the equation.

Note that in section (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

So, who defines what a domestic terrorist is? The Department of Homeland Security. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (S.T.A.R.T.) at the University of Maryland (Which was partly funded by the DHS)

In their review, on pages 9 and 10, the definition of particular groups are mentioned below:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).

Religious: groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (e.g., those who seek to politicize religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults; 2010: 17). For example, Jewish Direct Action, Mormon extremist, Jamaat-al-Fuqra, and Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) are included in this category. 

Ethno-Nationalist/Separatist: regionally concentrated groups with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government, who are committed to gaining or regaining political independence through any means and who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945. 

Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum.

So, as we move forward in the election process you will continually hear politician’s, specifically Paul Broun, try and defend their position on voting for the N.D.A.A. in 2012. Congress Paul Broun brings up that he voted for the Amash/Smith Amendment and then the Amash/Gibson Amendment that would have repealed sections 1021 and 1022. Don’t be fooled by this nonsense. If you KNOWINGLY vote for a bill, this radical, why on God’s Green Earth would you vote for this bill to begin with?!

This is known in Washington as “Double Speak.”

I have to give it to Congressmen Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston though, they are both owning their votes like a champ!

Our Constitutional Rights are NOT up for debate nor compromise. If you give up one, you give up all.