This is one of the most important columns I’ll ever write and I’ve written several thousand over the years.
While millions were guzzling the booze, the usurper, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, decided to sign the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s eve while playing in Hawaii on borrowed taxpayer dollars.
As millions who are informed about the internal destruction of this country read the language of S. 1867 and the house version, H.R. 1540, controversy arose over several sections (1021, 1022 and in the senate bill 1032); in particular the word requirement.
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY continues over to page 362:
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
The putative president with no power to sign anything into law has now clarified it for everyone. This is from one media source (emphasis mine)
“The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or “associated forces” and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.
“The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.”
“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.
“My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”
Our most important traditions? The Bill of Rights is now a tradition? But, of course, Obama/Soetoro is a pathological liar and there is that pesky sentence above containing the words “may waive the military custody requirement”. A signing statement has no weight of law so I can assume that somewhere down the line, the opposite of what the usurper says will happen.
So, now what are you going to do about it? After the “Patriot” Act was signed, the Internet was flooded with a thousand columns. Hand wringing, moaning and lots of martial law is coming!!!!
What did people do after the John Warner Defense Authorization Act was passed in 2007?
“(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
“Lots of hand wringing, moaning and big macho talk followed that new law which accomplished nothing.
But what about Posse Comitatus people screamed in columns and on talk radio? Well, it was being chipped away while everyone ignored the solution:
“The Posse Comitatus Act, a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878, prohibiting most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states, their counties and municipal divisions). In other words, the PCA limited to a great degree the powers of the federal government to use active military for law enforcement.
“There have been more laws enacted by Congress over the years explicitly allowing the military to be used in certain domestic scenarios. Legal hawks say the most significant is the ‘Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981 (“MSCLEA”), the purpose of which is to allow the exchange of information and services between military and law enforcement “when necessary” to protect the people and interests of the United States.
“Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve, penned a paper titled, ‘The Myth of Posse Comitatus’, in October 2000, where he said: “Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter.”"Really? Did you forget New Orleans and WACO, Major Trebilcock? His paper was a justification for use of military within the states of the Union for “domestic terrorism.”
Anyone who has taken the time to learn the history of how this constitutional republic was birthed know without any doubt the states at that time did not hand over all the power to the General Government. Far from it and the limitations on the power of the newly created General Government, the body for lawmaking being the U.S. Congress are succinctly spelled out in Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Let me quote Joseph Story, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 – emphasis is mine:
“Another not unimportant consideration is that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.”
One of the biggest mistake the states have made over the decades is to accept money from “laws” passed by Congress making the borrower slave to the lender. I put laws in quotation marks for a reason:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:”The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..”
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
“No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
“The problem we face is there is no longer any true justice in the courts, federal or state. Judicial corruption and activism is a cancer that has grown over the years thanks to the cowardice of the Outlaw Congress in their failure to remove bad judges. The same applies at the state level.
For those who do not take seriously what is happening, you ought to take the time to read The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer; a massive tome of 1140 pages. Or, this superb article by Jacob G. Hornberger (Sept. 2006): How Hitler Became a Dictator. The same path to totalitarian government has been underway for years.
Again, I ask, what are YOU going to do about our dire situation?
Complain? Threaten to throw out your congress critter in Nov. 2012? Maybe write another letter for which you will receive the same doublespeak you’ve been getting from Rep. Fool for years? Call into talk radio? Make big testosterone talk? How about all the new columns that will now be written about the NDAA protesting what Soetoro signed into “law”?
Will any of those actions stop tyranny?
All my life I have been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. Our God given, natural right to own and bear arms. It wasn’t until 2005 when Dr. Edwin Vieira began writing his scholarly columns about the Second Amendment I realized I didn’t know squat. I knew what part of the Second Amendment said, but I had absolutely no idea what the first few words actually meant regarding the right to own and bear arms:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, before Napolitano and her henchmen from the massive waste of money called the Department of Fatherland Security get a thrill up their legs, the constitutional militia is not to overthrow the government or to go to war against the government. America can thank the foolish out there (especially law enforcement agencies) who believe the lies spewed by the freedom hating money bags at the Southern “Poverty” Law Center regarding “a well regulated militia” as being something so vile, even use of the word militia is akin to cursing.
Nothing could be further from the truth as I learned over time by reading Edwin’s columns and his book, Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms. I also re-learned what I had forgotten from school about the history of this country and the power of the purse and sword:
“When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade. A standing army we shall have, also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny. Your guns are gone! What resistance could be made?”
Will you assemble and just tell them? Even if you could assemble, how will you enforce rightful punishment when due? Your guns are gone!
“My great objection to this government is that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or waging war against tyrants. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hand of the congress?……Oh, sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the people.”
Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can, retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty! Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force, and whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined!”
Click here for Part Two