Listen to this great clip from the SC Tea Party Coalition Convention

Ben Smith Fmr Navy SEAL followed by Panel

http://new.livestream.com/teapartypatriotslive/SC

Does this concern you?

$600,000 MILITARY MINE RESISTANT VEHICLE FOR $4,000

Local police tool-up with surplus equipment -- 'The government is afraid of its own citizens'

Read more! 

THEN TUNE IN TO THE 'CCTA WAKE UP CALL' RADIO PROGRAM, 

FRIDAY, JANUARY 24th on WNBU 94.1 at 6:30 am!

You can also hear it afterwards online at our website, http://cctaxpayers.com.  You should also listen to the archive of yesterday's show, where the NDAA and militarization of our police was discussed.  That conversation continues on the January 24th show!

The NDAA: A Tale of Two Cities

By Jeff Lewis, National Director, Patriot Coalition (Oct. 15, 2013)

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” - Charles Dickens.

Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) founder Michael Boldin apparently sees League City, Texas and Oxford, Massachusetts, both of which passed anti-NDAA resolutions, through two different lenses.

In a March 28, 2013 TAC article titled, “Resolution to Nullify NDAA Indefinite Detention Passes in League City, Texas,” Boldin is quoted as saying,

“This is a big step forward. Since this country was founded on the principle that “we the people” are supposed to be in charge, it makes sense that the most effective activism would start out on a local level. I congratulate all those who worked hard to get this resolution passed in League City.”

TAC’s League City article also states,

“The key clause of the resolution is the one calling for full noncompliance 

with the federal government:

“Instruct all our public agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel”

I've not been able to find any TAC article celebrating adoption of their “noncompliance” resolutions as being merely “opinion,” yet, when Boldin writes about the recently adopted Albany, New York and Oxford, Massachusetts resolutions, he spends a considerable amount of time marginalizing both the resolutions and the proponents of it, citing “home rule” as a reason the Albany and Oxford resolutions are just “opinion.”

After declaring earlier this year that PANDA’s Dan Johnson was his “enemy” for not supporting the Michigan Warm Fuzzy Act (HB-4138) promoted by Boldin, it would seem that TAC feels threatened by anyone who isn't drinking his “nullification through non-compliance” koolaid.

Boldin’s thinly-veiled criticism of the Oxford, Massachusetts resolution is in actuality an attempt to marginalize and discredit People Against the NDAA (PANDA) and its youthful founder, Dan Johnson. His tone and rhetoric are condescending propaganda at best, and demonstrate his ignorance of, and disregard of the Constitution.

The oath of office required by the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 includes supporting the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land,” as it was ordained by the people to be, in Article VI, Clause 2.

Boldin’s hypothesis erroneously posits that only after a “law” is adopted are oath takers required to uphold the Constitution, and that “ignorance of the law” is an excuse to not protect the rights and liberties of the people, stating:

“Certainly, a constitutionalist would hope that peace officers, under their Oath to the Constitution, would agree with such a view in principle. But, unfortunately, claiming that a non-binding resolution expressing a Council opinion would have the effect of legally causing all who take an Oath to “know this is unConstitutional” is a stretch, at best. In order to change the policy and actions of the Albany Police department, specific legal mechanisms (or a lot of one-on-one education of peace officers) will be required.”

That is absurd at best.

While it is hardly conceivable that Boldin isn't aware of the source of the Restoring Constitutional Governance (RCG) resolution and model legislation, he erroneously states the Oxford RCG Resolution was “drafted by PANDA.”

While PANDA has certainly been, and continues to be a prime partner and well-informed advocate for our Restoring Constitutional Governance (RCG) legislation and local resolutions, the RCG was drafted as a part of The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER project after hundreds of hours of research by me, Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry, a constitutional attorney, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law grad who specialized in the application of military law on civilian populations.

TAC’s “noncompliance” model simply tells state and local actors to “not do” something the law in question doesn't require them to do, that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the feds can’t do, and can’t make the states help them do. Also, there is nothing to “nullify” since the 2012 NDAA, Section 1021 was nullified from inception as it was not written “in Pursuance thereof” to the U.S. Constitution, as per Article VI, Clause 2.

It is worth noting that League City, Texas, falls under the “home rule” classification as well, so are we to presume that the League City noncompliance resolution’s “Instruct all our public agencies…” clause is merely a “request” based on the “opinion” of the council?


What the Tenth Amendment Center has promoted and celebrated in California and other states this past year is little more than smoke and mirrors borrowed from the worthless Virginia bill. It solicits legislators to ignore their duties of “allegiance and protection,” and encourages them to violate their Oath to support the Constitution by advising them to “stand down” instead of “stand up” and “interpose” themselves between the people and rogue federal agents violating their rights.

The “feel good” legislation adopted by California, Alaska, and Virginia is worthless. It gives legislators a pass for not protecting the rights of the people, and gives the people a false sense of security that the state, in passing this legislation, has restored or preserved their God-given, inalienable Rights. I’d hardly call any of them victories.

The Warm Fuzzy Act, aka “Liberty Preservation Act” borders on of “treason to the Constitution” according to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who, in 1821 said,

“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."

-SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264 (1821)

If I heard it once, I heard it a dozen times from state legislators across the country, “We just need something we can pass.”

What they are really saying is: The natives are restless, and we need “feel-good legislation” that doesn't really do anything to solve the problem, but that will get them off our backs. 

What PANDA reported in their recent press release is accurate. 

“The tide is now turning against the NDAA’s detention provisions. Oxford’s Resolution states: “

…it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful for any person to: 

a. arrest or capture any person in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, within the United States, with the intent of “detention under the law of war,” or 

b. actually subject a person in Oxford, to “disposition under the law of war,” or 

c. subject any person to targeted killing in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, 

within the United States;…”

As Boldin stated in the article above, “we the people” are supposed to be in charge…” In Oxford, Massachusetts, the people ARE in charge, and the people have unequivocally resolved that what the feds are doing is unconstitutional. 

The Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution of Oxford, Massachusetts removes “plausible deniability” that public officials don’t know better, and most likely, the traditional “immunity” that public servants enjoy in the performance of their duties will not shield them from a jury’s scrutiny should the feds attempt, and the locals assist or refuse to interpose as their oath requires. 

You don’t need a local “law” when you have the “supreme Law of the Land” on your side. We will never restore constitutional governance by enabling and rewarding public servants who refuse to actively defend our God-given inalienable Rights. 

We the People need to do as the Founders advised during their “age of wisdom,” and grow out of what Dickens referred to as the “age of foolishness.” 

How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “nullify,” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? ZERO. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, penned by Madison as adopted by the Virginia Assembly? ZERO. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, penned by Jefferson as adopted by the Kentucky Legislature? ZERO. The Kentucky legislature “rejected” the language which most nullifiers deploy as “the rightful remedy.” You will only find it in the draft. (Notice the link to the actual language at the top in small print as “this version,” which at first glance appears to be the version on the page they call “The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”) This is also the version TAC erroneously promotes “were adopted by the Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798…” 

Honest mistake? Perhaps, but if your objective is to market a concept the Constitution doesn't support, and the duties of “allegiance and protection” don’t permit, but you’re looking for validating a position that’s an easy sell, the draft version sounds great. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” or any variation of it in his Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions? ONCE, and it was past tense (nullified), denoting not an action to be taken, but rather, the “status” of the Sedition Act.

How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “interpose” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? FIFTEEN. 

How many times will you find the word “interpose” or any variation of it in Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions? TEN. 

The Framers, including James Madison, understood that a law not written “in Pursuance” of the Constitution was no law at all. They understood there was nothing to “nullify.” They also understood their duty was to stand between rogue federal agents and the people. 

The duty is to “interpose.” Under the oath, and duty of “allegiance and protection,” actively defending the rights of the people is neither optional nor a form of nullification. 

In “Correcting a Common Tenth Amendment Center Misunderstanding of ‘Nullification,” Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry addressed the concept of “allegiance and protection,” stating in part, the following: 

“Never heard of Allegiance and Protection? It is noted at least three times by the Apostle Paul, three times in the Declaration of Independence and it is the "allegiance" you refer to when you say " I pledge allegiance to the flag . . ." and has been recognized by the Supreme Court in many cases.” (Read full citations here.) 

James Madison, in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, recognized the states’ right and duty to stand between rogue federal actions and the people by including this: 

“that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

The duty of a state to “interpose” on behalf of its citizens existed long before the Constitution. By adopting the Constitution, the states did not surrender or negate their duty to “protect” the folks within their respective jurisdictions; they added another layer of protection.


The Virginia, California, and Alaska “nullification” legislation is “non-compliance” legislation at best. What does that accomplish?

Imagine this. You’re in an alley, about to be mugged and kidnapped. A policeman happens to pass by, but instead of stopping (interposing) the mugger, the policeman doesn't help the mugger rob you. He just stands by and watches.

Don’t get excited or upset. Everything’s going to be just fine. The policeman won’t help the mugger tie you up, and he won’t let them use his police car to escape in, and won’t allow the mugger/kidnapper to hold you hostage indefinitely at the local police station. Feel better?

That’s what the NDAA “nullification” bills such as Tenth Amendment Center’s “Liberty Preservation Act” do. This is what they convinced Virginia, California, and Alaska to pass.

The 2012 NDAA violates over 14 provisions of the Constitution, including over half of the Bill of Rights. If that doesn't fit Madison’s definition of “a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers,” I don’t know what does. If that doesn't require what Madison recognized as requiring the states, “who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,” I shudder to think what would.

The battle against the ‘intolerable acts’ the 2012 NDAA authorizes should end the way Charles Dickens ended “A Tale of Two Cities,”

‘It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done;

it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.’

Warm-fuzzy do-nothing legislation is not the “rightful remedy.” In fact, it is a recipe for disaster.

Both directly and indirectly, we've attempted to do as Jefferson advised, to “inform their discretion.” We are not their enemy, and neither is PANDA, but truth delayed is truth denied.

James Madison, in Federalist 40, said the following:

“If, according to the noble precept, it be lawful to accept good advice even from an enemy, shall we set the ignoble example of refusing such advice even when it is offered by our friends?

The prudent inquiry, in all cases, ought surely to be, not so much from whom the advice comes, as whether the advice be good.”

If Boldin and TAC won’t take our advice, or Madison’s, perhaps they will take their own.
Their motto is: “The Constitution. Every Issue, Every time. No Exceptions, No Excuses.”

We couldn't agree more.

Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Tale-of-Two-Cities.pdf

Get the RCG Act for your state at: http://theintolerableacts.org 

Contact: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com

CCTA Watchdog Report North Carolina Legislative Report-29 MARCH 2013

Dear CCTA Members & Friends,


This is not a "full report," but does contain some information I thought you'd like to hear.

I just got off the phone with our friend and representative, Michael Speciale, who pointed out several things we need to know.

April 10th is the deadline for members of the North Carolina House to file bills.
Yesterday was the last day bill writing assistance requests could be made. The result is that very soon we will be able to go online and see all the bills that will be considered in this session. I gather that many of the more substantive bills (several concerning topics that concern us greatly) will be among them. Some bills regarding protecting our God given rights have recently been filed, or will be showing up soon. Michael has filed a bill dealing with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and a bill has been filed essentially saying that anyone not convicted of using a weapon in a crime should be able to carry a concealed weapon. Stay tuned. Let's keep an eye on the legislative website.

There are other bills being worked on (but not yet filed) that Michael expects us to favor. Some of them may receive opposition, and it may be helpful for us to organize a rally or two on the mall in Raleigh while the legislators are in session. Just a "heads up" at this point, but we may need to invite other groups to help us organize a rally and "visit your representatives" session. When our representatives do their part, we need to do ours, right?

Sincerely,
Raynor James,
North Carolina Legislative Watchdog
P.S.

The one exception to the April 10th deadline is that bills filed by committees can continue to be filed. For example, the Appropriations Committee has not yet filled a budget bill, and it may very well be filed after the April 10th deadline.

Recent U.S. House Votes

Energy Efficiency – Suspension - Vote Passed (398-2, 1 Present, 30 Not Voting)
In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on an energy measure, the House came together to pass a bill clarifying federal efficiency standards for a variety of heavy appliances, including air conditioners and commercial refrigerators (excluding walk-in refrigerators). Though the measure appears uncontroversial, its prospects are not clear in the Senate given the crowded calendar.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes YES

Global Internet Governance – Adoption - Vote Passed (397-0, 34 Not Voting)
The House unanimously agreed to Senate language expressing the sense of Congress that the Internet should remain “free from government control.” The concurrent resolution was adopted amid the backdrop of a meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a United Nations body broadly responsible for fostering cooperation among governments and the private sector on international telecommunications governance. Technology companies such as Google have voiced concern that the ITU conference could lead to adoption of restrictive regulations making it easier for national governments to censor content.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes YES

Amending Language in Federal Law – Suspension - Vote Passed (398-1, 32 Not Voting)
In its final action of the week, the House cleared a Senate bill that would remove the pejorative “lunatic” from the United States Code. The lone House dissenter was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, who insisted that lunatic should be retained, pointing to his fellow Members of Congress as living, breathing examples of the term. The bill awaits the president’s signature.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes  YES

UPCOMING VOTE
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 - H.R.4310
The House is scheduled to consider several bills under suspension of the rules, as well as a Motion to go to Conference on the defense authorization bill.

Recent U.S. Senate Votes

Disability Treaty – Ratification - Vote Rejected (61-38, 1 Not Voting)
Despite a last-minute appearance by former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas in support of the treaty, Senate Republicans mustered enough opposition to defeat the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Supporters, including Dole and Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., described the treaty as essentially enshrining the Americans with Disabilities Act (PL 101-336) as an international standard. Kerry highlighted the treaty’s support among veterans groups. The treaty’s detractors, including Republican presidential candidate and former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, raised the possibility of “international bureaucrats” making child-care decisions in place of parents, including potentially restricting home schooling. All international treaties require a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, so supporters fell five votes short. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada vowed another vote in the next Congress.
Sen. Richard Burr voted NO      Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES
Defense Authorization – Final Passage - Vote Passed (98-0, 2 Not Voting)

Following a Monday cloture vote, last week the Senate gave unanimous support to its FY 2013 defense authorization bill. The measure provides funding for all branches of the armed services (excluding the Coast Guard), nuclear security operations at the Department of Energy, and “overseas contingency operations,” i.e., funding for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas conflicts. Fiscal 2013 funding in the bill would come to roughly $631 billion, $88 billion of which covers war costs. Major amendments adopted during debate would further toughen sanctions against Iran; clarify that U.S. citizens and permanent residents may not be detained without charge or trial if apprehended on American soil; prohibit transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. facility; and ensure that the Pentagon is able to purchase alternative fuels. The provision on alternative fuels is likely to be a sticking point in conference negotiations with the House, whose bill prohibits purchase of such fuels if they are more expensive than traditional options such as petroleum. Despite President Obama’s veto message, both chambers’ bills contain restrictions on Guantanamo detainee transfers, retirement of Air National Guard planes, and TRICARE enrollment fees. Though conferees have not been named for either side (that is likely to happen this week), staff discussions have already begun.
Sen. Richard Burr voted YES      Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES

Russia/Moldova Trade Relations – Final Passage - Vote Passed (92-4, 4 Not Voting)

The Senate cleared the way for more open trade with the Russian Federation and the tiny Eastern European republic of Moldova last week with passage of a House measure that lifts 1970s-vintage restrictions on both countries. The move was necessitated by Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization over the summer; had trade restrictions not been rescinded, the U.S. would have been vulnerable to retaliatory actions by the Russians. Moldova has been a WTO member since 2001 and appears simply to have hitched a ride on a moving legislative vehicle. Despite cheers from the business community for the free trade measure, the Russian government is deeply unhappy with accompanying language chiding its poor human rights record and sanctioning individuals associated with the imprisonment and death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. The bill is currently before the president and will likely be signed into law shortly.
Sen. Richard Burr voted YES     Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES

Upcoming Vote


To temporarily extend the transaction account guarantee program, and for other purposes. - S.3637
The Senate is scheduled to hold a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a bill that would extend the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) program through the end of 2014. TAG is a program administered by the FDIC that provides full deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. The program was created in the midst of the financial crisis in late 2008 and later extended for two years in late 2010. It is set to expire at the end of this year, however, and lobbyists for small and independent banks are making a heavy push to extend the program again. Republicans are wary of keeping it alive, so invoking cloture is no guarantee.

The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER ALERT!

The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER ALERT!

Jeff Lewis, March 28, 2012 / Updated: Nov 29, 2012

Due Process Guarantee Amendment to NDAA

Continues “Treason to the Constitution.”

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein has cranked up her “smoke-and-mirrors generator” twice this year, each time under the pretense of restoring our rights. In the spring, she called it “The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011.” Now it’s called SECTION 1033: “PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS,” introduced as an amendment to S. 3254, the 2013 NDAA.

The introduction of the “Due Process Guarantee Act Amendment” by Senators Feinstein, Lee, Paul, etc… to the 2013 NDAA speaks volumes. Congress has no intention of fixing the problem they created. According to Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, taking authority the Constitution does not grant is “treason to the Constitution.” (See Marbury v. Madison)

The exact same clause appears in Senator Paul’s first proposed amendment that can be found in the “Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011,” and the “Due Process Guarantee Amendment” which prohibits unconstitutional acts against U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents “unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”

The Constitution grants Congress no such power to “expressly authorize” turning our Rights into privileges. It doesn’t grant any branch of the federal government such power. Below is the original article with the detailed explanation of why both the act and the amendments are frauds.

“Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011”

Guarantees Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens

H.R. 3702 / S. 2003

On Dec. 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (NDAA) into law which included provisions unrelated to funding our military. Sections 1021 and 1022 authorize the “indefinite detention” of U.S. citizens, without a trial, without charges, without an attorney, for as long as the President wants.

“The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011” was introduced in both the House and Senate to give the illusion that Members of Congress were actually listening to the concerns of We the People.

On the surface it sounds good, but in reality, it’s no different than the Feinstein amendment to the NDAA that removed the “requirement” of military detention of U.S. citizens, but fell short of actually prohibiting it.

The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011” doesn’t guarantee anything. In fact, once you read the language, you’ll find that it essentially confirms the belief of Congress that they have the authority to, by statute, render the Constitution and Bill of Rights inapplicable.

On Feb. 29, 2012, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S. 2003, the “Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011.” The matching House bill is H.R. 3702.

“I opposed and will continue to oppose indefinite detention. I fought against the Bush administration policies that led to the current situation, with indefinite detention being the de facto policy. I opposed President Obama's executive order in March 2011 that contemplated indefinite detention. I opposed the provisions in the NDAA, as well.

A regime of indefinite detention degrades the credibility of this great Nation around the globe, particularly when we criticize other governments for engaging in such conduct. Indefinite detention contradicts the most basic principles of law that I have pledged to uphold since my years as a prosecutor and in our senatorial oath to defend the Constitution. That is why I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

   - Senator Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing on “Due Process Guarantee Act,” Feb. 29, 2012

The “Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011,” like the Landry bill H.R. 3676, purports to fix the problems with the NDAA, but in reality neither does anything to repeal the unconstitutional provisions (1021 & 1022).

Under the proposed 18 USC Section 4001 Clause (2)(b)(1) it says you can’t detain a citizen or lawful permanent resident without charge or trial who was apprehended in the United States “unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”

There’s a problem with that, since the “supreme law of the land” [the U.S. Constitution] doesn’t authorize Congress to ignore our right to due process, and only provides for the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the event of “Rebellion or Invasion,” and only then if the public safety requires it. (See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2)

18 USC 4001 will look like this if “The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011” becomes law:

18 USC § 4001 - Limitation on detention; control of prisons

(a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(b)
     (1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention. (emphasis added)

    (2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011.'

(c)
    (1) The control and management of Federal penal and correctional institutions, except military or naval institutions, shall be vested in the Attorney General, who shall promulgate rules for the government thereof, and appoint all necessary officers and employees in accordance with the civil-service laws, the Classification Act, as amended, and the applicable regulations.

    (2) The Attorney General may establish and conduct industries, farms, and other activities and classify the inmates; and provide for their proper government, discipline, treatment, care, rehabilitation, and reformation. (End of bill, emphasis added.)

Congress would never authorize indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens, right?

According to several Members of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress already has. Read the following passages from the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, which was argued by both sides in defense of their positions during the Senate floor debate of the “indefinite detention” provisions in the 2012 NDAA. (See videos on http://TheIntolerableActs.org) Senator Lindsey Graham, during the debate over the “indefinite detention” provisions, said this:

“And when they say, I want my lawyer, you tell them shut up! You don’t get a lawyer. You’re an enemy combatant.”

Senator Graham believes we are guilty until proven innocent. No wait, you don’t get a lawyer. You don’t get the opportunity to prove you are innocent, and they don’t have to prove you’re guilty. The U.S. Supreme Court would never approve of indefinite detention of Americans without trial, right? They already have.

HAMDI vs. RUMSFELD (U.S. Supreme Court Justice O’Conner, writing for the majority)

“…The threshold question before us is whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as “enemy combatants.” There is some debate as to the proper scope of this term, and the Government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals as such. It has made clear, however, that, for purposes of this case, the “enemy combatant” that it is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was “ ‘part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners’ ” in Afghanistan and who “ ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States’ ” there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.”

“The Government again presses two alternative positions. First, it argues that §4001(a), in light of its legislative history and its location in Title 18, applies only to “the control of civilian prisons and related detentions,” not to military detentions. Brief for Respondents 21. Second, it maintains that §4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained “pursuant to an Act of Congress”–the AUMF. Id., at 21—22. Again, because we conclude that the Government’s second assertion is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe (assuming, without deciding, that such authorization is required), and that the AUMF satisfied §4001(a)’s requirement that a detention be “pursuant to an Act of Congress” (assuming, without deciding, that §4001(a) applies to military detentions).”

(quip) “The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention, through the AUMF.”

Dictionary definition of expressly: “in an express manner; explicitly”

To put this in context, if the “Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011” provisions are added to 18 USC 4001, and based on recent Supreme Court rulings, what will that mean?

1) Congress is asserting by stating “unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention” is that it has the power to give the Executive branch the authority to “detain without charge or trial” any person, including U.S. Citizens and lawful permanent residents, (i.e., suspend Habeas Corpus without actually suspending it); and,

2) According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government can detain U.S. Citizens and permanent residents without charge or trial because Congress has already authorized it in the 2001 AUMF.”

The “Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011,” as written, does absolutely nothing to restore the Constitutionally-guaranteed unalienable Rights of United States Citizens. The slippery slope of destroying the Bill of Rights by statute is all but complete.

When the U.S. is “waging war” on foreign battlefields, in the eyes of the international community, we are judged based on our adherence to the various international treaties and agreements we have entered into, such as The Hague and Geneva conventions.

The U.S. government, under both the Bush and Obama Administrations, has sought ways to “legalize” the indefinite detention, cruel and unusual rendition methods such as water-boarding and prolonged interrogation of suspects, regardless of nationality and citizenship, to include U.S. Citizens and lawful resident aliens.

It became obvious that they could not accomplish this and still adhere to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, because the ‘supreme law of the land’ expressly prohibits denying due process, trial by jury in an Article III court, etc…

They also could not apply the internationally-recognized “laws of war” as embodied in the Geneva Conventions, because they too prohibited the indefinite detention of “non-militarized” combatants by the military.

Words mean something. The Geneva Conventions only recognize two types of people as it relates to the proverbial “law of war.” They are “enemy combatant” and “civilian.” Each nation has its own “law of war” handbook to guide their respective military regimes on how they should “wage war.”

The U.S. government’s “2010 Law of War Deskbook” acknowledges that nowhere in the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocols (AP’s) is there a classification of “unlawful enemy combatant.” That term is a legal fiction created by Congress in the 2006 and 2009 “Military Commissions Act.”

Congress has “modified” the U.S. “law of war” handbook to justify the detention, torture, and killing of a “third” category of individuals they call “unlawful enemy combatants,” and passed laws such as the “Military Commissions Act” to create a statutory authority for our Commander-in-Chief and U.S. military to act outside the constraints of either the Constitution or international “law of war” protocols.

AP I states: “Consequently, under AP I, a civilian can only be lawfully, lethally targeted “for such time” that civilian has a direct causal relationship to harm being caused to military personnel or equipment at that point in time.” (Law of War Deskbook, page 96)

Anwar al-Awlaki, (a “civilian” who was “out of combat” by international treaty and “law of war” standards, and a U.S. citizen who was not on a “battlefield”), could not “lawfully” be “lethally targeted.”

As a “civilian” under both the U.S. Constitution and internationally-recognized “laws of war,” Anwar al-Awlaki should have been arrested, and tried by the civil courts as a criminal. As a U.S. Citizen who was allegedly “levying War” or “adhering to their [the United States’] enemies,” under the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Awlaki should have been tried for treason. Instead, President Obama had him assassinated in Yemen with a drone attack that also killed Awlaki’s teenage son. Many in Congress have expressed outrage that the President would assassinate a U.S. Citizen, yet they are the ones who passed the laws that gave such power to the Executive Branch.


America is in trouble, and if we don’t get a grip soon, the Blessings of Liberty will become the Tribulations of Slavery. There is only one piece of legislation that begins the process of restoring the liberties stolen by the NDAA, and it is not “The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011.”

H.R. 3785, introduced by Rep. Ron Paul would repeal section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA. It’s simple. It’s honest. It’s constitutional. Demand your Members of Congress stop playing politics with your freedoms, and start defending your God-given unalienable Rights.

For God & Country,
Jeff Lewis
National Director, Patriot Coalition
National Director, FIRE Coalition
http://blog.patriotcoalition.com
http://livestream.com/WRCG
Email: Jeff@PatriotCoalition.com

Rand Paul Amendment to 2013 NDAA Does Nothing

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is proposing to amend S. 3254, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Before we get too excited about Senator Rand Paul’s amendment, due diligence must be given as to what it does and doesn’t do.

Senator Paul’s amendment is ineffectual for several reasons including, but not limited to:

1. It only applies to citizens, and ignores the rights of non-citizens, regardless of immigration status.

2. The use of the term “captured” implies full spectrum military operations against U.S. citizens within the United States, yet it is unclear what this authority is based upon. Does Senator Paul accept the pretense that America is part of the “battlefield,” and as such, is under the “law of war” and martial law?   3. Senator Paul’s amendment only references detention of U.S. citizens by the Armed Forces of the United States, but does not apply to

a. “any other foreign country,” or

b. b. “ any other foreign entity,” (See 2012 NDAA, Section 1021(c)(4))

4. By Senator Paul tying his amendment to the AUMF, the amendment only applies to that part of the 2012 NDAA targeting profile that reaffirmed the AUMF, but does not cover the second half of the 2012 NDAA targeting profile, which is the larger of the two.

Senator Paul’s proposed amendment would add the following section to the 2013 NDAA:   CONTINUE READING HERE PLEASE! http://theintolerableacts.org/docs/Rand-Paul-Amendment.pdf

Breaking…Obama Reinstates NDAA Military Detention Provision!!

A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

CONTINUED:  http://randysrightiii.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/breaking-obama-reinstates-ndaa-military-detention-provision/

NC RENEGADE: Urgent!!!!

Only Good Republicans can stop this Disaster
(NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT and more). PLEASE READ PROMPTLY

I received this “urgent” request in an email from a Tea Party leader in North Carolina. My only comment is why it is directed to “Good Republicans”? What happened to “Good Americans”? Romney and the GOP support the NDAA: case closed. How do I know? Romney told us and the GOP voted en masse to pass it. I have to ask why the TSA is providing security at Paul Ryan speeches? Is it because they have not sworn an oath to the Constitution? I do not think we have long to wait to see the disposition of 1.2 billion hollow point rounds.


CONTINUED:  http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/urgent-only-good-republicans-can-stop-this-disaster-please-read-promptly/

CCTA EVENTS THIS WEEK YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS

Two events this week at… 

Bridgepointe Hotel Across the bridge from New Bern, NC, near Outback

In the room overlooking the Trent River

On Tuesday, June 19 at 7 pm…
The Tenth Amendment & “Nullification” From concept to useful laws, Speaker: Phil Routszong
Virginia’s new “NDAA Nullification Act” is an example


On Wednesday, June 20 from 6 to 9 pm…
U.S. Constitution Seminar, America’s Original Success Formula, Speaker: Earl Taylor, PhD, President, National Center for Constitutional Studies

Both free & open to all citizens--(Optional $5 study guide available at Constitution Seminar)

The Intolerable Acts: NDAA & AGENDA 21 PRESENTATION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:


LIVE BROADCAST AT HTTP://LIVESTREAM.COM/theintolerableacts

NDAA & AGENDA 21 PRESENTATION for North Carolina General Assembly, (PUBLIC WELCOME & ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND)

Wednesday, May 30, 2012
4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Room 544 - Legislative Office Building
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 515
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925

LIVE BROADCAST AT HTTP://LIVESTREAM.COM/theintolerableacts

Mr. Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, will be speaking about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) along with Jeff Lewis, co-founder and National Director of the Patriot Coalition, and Rep. Glen Bradley, sponsor of H.R. 982 & H.R. 983.

Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Lewis, along with Patriot Coalition General Counsel Richard D. Fry, co-authored model NDAA resolutions that have been introduced and/or adopted by sheriffs, other law enforcement, county commissions, and state legislators across the country.

Legislators need accurate, honest information to make informed decisions regarding We the People's business. Provisions in the 2012 & 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) violate no fewer than 14 provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including over half the Bill of Rights, and many more provisions of the North Carolina Constitution and Declaration of Rights.


FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT REP. GLEN BRADLEY BELOW, OR JEFF LEWIS AT 252-876-9489, EMAIL: JEFF@PATRIOTCOALITION.COM

END PRESS RELEASE

From: Rep. Glen Bradley
To: @House/Members , @Senate/Members

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In cooperation with Jeff Lewis of the Intolerable Acts and the Patriot Coalition, we are holding a one hour educational presentation on Agenda 21 and the NDAA with a multimedia presentation and a discussion of what these items are and how they affect us and the people of our state.

This training session will take place from 4PM until 5PM on Wednesday May 30th, in room 544 of the Legislative Office Building.

Coffee and water will be available. All members are invited and strongly encouraged to attend.

Thank you!
Glen Bradley
Representative Glen Bradley, North Carolina State House
District 49: Franklin, Nash, Halifax
Raleigh Office:  glen.bradley@ncleg.net
(919) 733-5860
NC House of Representatives
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 536, Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
District Office:  Rep@NC49.org
(919) 728-0449
District 49 NC House Office
144 Ridgewood Road, Youngsville, NC 27596

Taxpayers for Common Sense--What's the Big Secret?

May 22, 2012

The Defense Authorization Act is probably the most important policy bill for the nation’s annual spending, directing more than half of our annual discretionary budget—more than $600 billion dollars. It also sets guidance on issues ranging from detention to contracting policy. You would think that Congress would do its work such a bill in public for the taxpayers to see. Unfortunately, you would be wrong.

Tomorrow, the Senate Armed Services Committee will continue its tradition of marking up the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) behind closed doors. Spending the taxpayers’ dollars in the dark is undemocratic because it encourages lobbying by special interests and prevents citizens from taking action on provisions they disagree with. This doesn’t have to happen: the House of Representatives marked up its version of the bill in public, and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) conducts her subcommittee’s markups in the light of day.

Taxpayers for Common Sense joined dozens of other groups in asking committee members to open their debates to the public. Now, we’re asking you to do the same. Start by going to OpenNDAA.org to find your Senator’s phone number and some talking points. You’ll find a few other quick tips there as well.

Then call or email your Senator and tell them to:

1.Show Us the Bill: Release the draft Senate defense budget bill and proposed amendments to the public at least 24 hours before votes

2.Vote No to Close: Vote no to closing the debate and the votes to the public

Below are links to the page on the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate websites that allows you to search for your member of Congress using your zip code. From there it will link you directly to the page on your members' website where you can send your message (by clicking on the envelope).

U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate

Time is short, so contact your Senator today and stop them from spending your money in the dark!

Sincerely,
Laura Peterson
Senior Policy Analyst, National Security
Taxpayers for Common Sense
651 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003

Congress To Amend NDAA – DOD & NSA Granted Even Greater Power

Most people are aware of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law at the first of the year. Much has been made of the particular section on the indefinite detention section and for good reason. States have even opposed NDAA with their own legislation. One part that has not faced as much scrutiny is the section concerning “military activities in cyberspace.” While the existing version grants the Defense Department the ability to conduct those kinds of military activities, but only “upon direction by the President” and if the purpose for such action is to “defend our Nation, Allies and interests,” being subject to existing laws.  Here is how the current version reads:

SEC. 954. MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE.
Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to—
(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and
(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

This does not seem to be enough though. The House Armed Services Committee wants to do a little changing up of this section to give the Defense Department broad powers to conduct any clandestine military actions online against whichever targets any one of the military agencies deems appropriate.
Here is what they want to substitute in its place:

READ MORE:  http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/congress-to-amend-ndaa-dod-nsa-granted-even-greater-power/

The Clear Choice in NC Senate District 18

Note:  CCTA is a non partisan organization.  We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party.  News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.

NC Senate District 18 has three Republican candidates in the primary election. There’s one clear choice – Glen Bradley. Bradley is the only candidate with any experience in public office. In fact Bradley won his seat in House District 49 even though he was outspent by his Democratic opponent by a margin of 7 to 1.

As a freshman legislator Bradley wrote HB 587 – the NC Job Growth through Regulatory Reform bill. Rep. Bradley understands the negative effect that state regulations have on job growth. “Under intense pressure from tens of thousands of concerned North Carolina citizens, the majority of the text of HB 587 was put into Senate Bill 781 Regulatory Reform and became the crown jewel jobs piece of the Joint Committee's Regulatory Reform bill, which [was] passed overriding the Governor's veto.”

Far too many politicians proclaim their support for the Constitution but their “support” translates into a campaign slogan devoid of substance. Not so with Bradley. As a member of the NC House he took his oaths to uphold the US Constitution and NC Constitution seriously. Bradley’s commitment to the letter and spirit of the US Constitution placed him at odds with his own party’s leadership.

The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution reads,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The states had not agreed to a system in which they would submit without protest to whatever the federal government should do. To the contrary, the states established a federal government with limited powers, and reserved for themselves all powers they did not delegate to that government. Any measures the federal government should take beyond the powers delegated to it are absolutely void. The federal government, which the states themselves created, cannot hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation and cannot decide for itself what the extent of its own powers are. That would mean the people were governed by the mere discretion of their rulers rather than by the Constitution. (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Nullification – How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2010. 47-48).

The 10th amendment is dynamic and relevant – it’s also historically grounded in the KY and VA Resolutions of 1798. Unfortunately one of the candidates running against Rep. Bradley commented, “I think when you talk to Glen you’ll find ... He’s going to talk about the constitution and things like that, which is fine … we just have different priorities. The things I see him advocating for have to do a lot with people’s personal liberties” … voters “aren’t sending me down to the General Assembly to nullify all of the federal laws we don’t like. Nullification is a strategy that usually doesn’t get you any closer to your goal,” he added. “It’s a waste of time [bold italics added].”

Such an attitude of disrespect for the Constitution in general and the 10th Amendment in particular is far too common among the GOP in the NC legislature. It’s tragic when a candidate believes that nullification involves “federal laws we don’t like.” Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution specifies the powers delegated to Congress. Any laws that are not in harmony with these delegated powers are unconstitutional and subject to nullification by the states.

In NC the legislature had an anemic response to Obamacare- they drafted a resolution requesting the state’s Attorney General to sue the federal government. This was vetoed by the Governor. However if it passed all that would have been accomplished would have been a lawsuit – there was no guarantee that national health care would have been stopped in NC. The NC legislature could have invoked the 10th amendment and declared that there is no Constitutional authority for every citizen to obtain health care. The NC state assembly has this power which the leadership refuses to use.

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011 into law on December 31, 2011. Two sections of the NDAA subjects US citizens to indefinite detention without due process, i.e., without a trial. The federal government now claims it has the authority to kidnap any US citizen it merely suspects of terrorism. This is tyranny which the states can and should nullify.

Virginia became the first state to nullify these provisions of the NDAA on April 18, 2012:  On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act. HB1160 “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

Rep. Bradley has gone on the record to voice his opposition to those provisions of the NDAA which involve indefinite detention of US citizens without due process. Bradley also publicly stated his intention to introduce a resolution against these provisions of the NDAA in the coming short session. The voters in the 18th Senate District need to understand what’s at stake and elect Glen Bradley.

 http://www.glenbradley2012.com/index.php

CCTA APRIL EVENTS -- YOU WON’T WANT TO MISS

MONDAY, APRIL 16th, 2012, 5:00 pm – 7:00 pm

CCTA IS PROUD TO HOST THE 4th ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY RALLY

UNION POINT PARK, 210 E. FRONT ST, DOWNTOWN NEW BERN

Chairman’s Theme for 2012: Be inspired, be informed and be involved!

Bring friends and family, your sign and a lawn chair if you like. Celebrate getting those taxes done with Uncle Sam and Friends!

‘We the People’ are ready for a ‘Solutions Revolution’

SPEAKERS: Jeff Lewis, Patriot Coalition—NDAA; Mitch Kokai, Director of Communications, John Locke Foundation; Chris Farr, State Grassroots Director, Americans for Prosperity.  MUSIC by Vocalist Jennifer Alcock.
___________________________________________________________________________

TUESDAY, APRIL 17th, 2012, 7:00-9:00 pm

COASTAL CAROLINA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (CCTA)

MONTHLY MEETING AND PROGRAM

Program: AGENDA 21--Speaker, Louis Stannard, Feet to the Fire.org.

Special guests Congressional Candidate District 3, Frank Palombo; NC House District 3 Candidate, Michel Speciale; District Court Judge Candidates—Dave McFadyen and Clinton Rowe.

Healing Grace Church 3407 Red Fox Road in Trent Woods, New Bern, NC.

(DIRECTIONS: Country Club Road to Wedgewood Drive to Red Fox/Dianne)

We meet every 3rd Tuesday at this location!

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC--PLEASE COME OUT AND JOIN US!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, a grassroots, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, advocates minimum government and maximum freedom. We are dedicated to the preservation of free enterprise and the United States Constitution. Excessive taxation upon citizens is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete contradiction of success through the free market system. We are dedicated to serve our community, our state, and our country by oversight, research, public education and advocacy in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.


_____________________________________________________________________________________

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: A Vote of Conscience, by CCTA Member, Lou Call

March 21, 2012
Beaufort Observer

As we approach from a distance November 2012, we approach the cross roads of America's future. No longer are we dealing with Democrat vs Republican but a far more sinister threat awaits us on the other side of the elections.

We will have to decide what principles we want to guide us over the next four years. Do we want the foundation of our Nation to rest on our Constitution, the document that has sustained us for 236 years and for which so many have given their lives to defend and uphold or do we wish to follow the course that the current administration wants to impose on us.

It is clear to most of us that our current president is pursuing the ideologies of Socialism (Obamacare) and Marxism (redistribution of wealth). The president rang in the New Year by signing into law the

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. With Americans distracted with celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

Directly on the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) comes the coup de grace in the form of a new bill called the "Enemy Expatriation Act." Space does not permit to go into full details but if the reader will Google both bills it will open your eyes to a dictatorial leader standing in the wings.

A word about the 'proposed' but yet to be passed Enemy Expatriation Act. If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States.

The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat. Carried to the extreme, do citizens or organizations that oppose and protest against the Obama regime fall into this category? I wonder how many of you are even aware of the existence of NDAA or have heard of the impending Enemy Expatriation Act?

After reading this article, some progressive liberal will write to the editor proclaiming that my article is of 'the sky is falling' mentality.

But ask yourself this; why do we have a need for such bills in an open and free society and why is the ACLU, guardians of our freedoms, silent?

Clearly, another four years of Obama will be another four years of a repressive government. Every year that Obama sits on the throne, a small bite of our liberties disappear in the quagmire of government regulations. The time has come to put aside party politics and look to your conscience to guide you. The future of a free America hangs in the balance and at risk is the future of our children and grandchildren; we owe it to them to stop this tyrannical government.

God Bless America!
Louis Call, River Bend, NC

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Site.Letters.htm

Martial Law Executive Order: History Should Cause Concern, Not Comfort

President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency. Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/11278-martial-law-executive-order-history-should-cause-concern-not-comfort

ENC Tea Party--NDAA Program March 27th--URGENT!

To hold this event we need 24 attendees. Please RSVP to karenkozel@yahoo.com today!


Please read the following letter as to WHY it is important that we are all educated about NDAA....

Dear Friends,

Please familiarize yourselves with this! Friday, March 16, 2012 President Obama signed an Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

While there is much to know and evaluate, please consider the following:


1. This EO is based upon an Act established in 1953.
2. This EO is copied from EOs written by several other presidents, to include Truman, Reagan, Clinton and now Obama.

THIS IS NOTHING NEW. Clinton's EO is still in effect and Obama's EO is irrelevant because it is nothing new. The real question should be, WHY NOW? Do not be manipulated.

There was also legislation passed in the US Congress on Dec. 31, 2012, The National Defense Authorization Act, commonly referred to as NDAA. You all received an invite to attend an educational seminar on March 27, 2012 from 6:30pm to 8:30pm at The Queen Street Deli, Kinston hosted by the Eastern NC Tea Party. If you haven't already responded, please consider attending to learn more. RSVP to karenkozel@yahoo.com.

Again, please familiarize yourselves with both as they will be the topic of more and more conversations as time goes on.

ENC TeaParty Presents an education on NDAA March 27, 6:30-8:30 pm

Queen St Deli and Bakery, 115 S Queen St, Kinston NC

Delicious deli sandwich, side and beverage for $6.

Candidates Welcome!!

March 27, 2012--Mark Your Calendars to Hear about NDAA and Meet Candidate for Lt. Governor, Dan Forest!

March 27, 2012 (Tuesday), 6:30 pm Eastern NC Tea Party meets at the

Queens Street

Deli and Cafe, Kinston - Two Great Guests in One Evening! 

What is NDAA? When was it passed? (What??!! It passed on New Year's Eve?)  What is NDAA all about? Join us to learn from the expert on NDAA. 

Join us along with Jeff Lewis, FIRE Coalition & Dan Forest, Candidate for Lt. Governor, (will be meeting and greeting). Dan is a homeschool Dad from Raleigh NC with a Conservative agenda, unmatched! 

Great deli sandwich, side and drink (1/2 sandwich is $6.00--whole sandwich is $10.00).  RSVP:  Karen Kozel at karenkozel@yahoo.com or (252) 527-7030.