"A declaration of WAR against the American People"

[Peter Lemkin]

I just was thinking....as horrible and draconian as the NDAA bill is, Obama may well make it worse with a signing statement....yes, he too has been using them, as did Bush. Read and weep.....

Obama Unconstitutionally Claims Unconstitutional War Powers in a Signing Statement

by David Swanson

Global Research, December 24, 2011
warisacrime.org

As you know if you've been awake the past several years, Bush began the unconstitutional practice of rewriting laws with signing statements, there was a little scandal when people found out, candidate Obama promised not to do it, Obama did it, Obama declared it OK in an executive order, and now it's all perfectly fine.

As you know if you give a damn about the future of this country, it isn't really perfectly fine. Here's Obama's latest. This is from a signing statement on a spending bill, not the "Defense" Authorization Act which is yet to come (perhaps on Christmas just to rub it in):

"Section 113 of Division H requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress 30 days in advance of "any proposed military exercise involving United States personnel" that is anticipated to involve expenditures of more than $100,000 on construction. Language in Division I, title I, under the headings International Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, disallows the expenditure of funds "for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national," unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress. In approving this bill, I reiterate the understanding, which I have communicated to the Congress, that I will apply these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

"Certain provisions in Division I, including sections 7013, 7025, 7029, 7033, 7043, 7046, 7049, 7059, 7062, and 7071, restrict or require particular diplomatic communications, negotiations, or interactions with foreign governments or international organizations. Others, including sections 7031, 7037, and 7086, hinder my ability to receive diplomatic representatives of foreign governments. Finally, section 7041 requires the disclosure to the Congress of information regarding ongoing diplomatic negotiations. I have advised the Congress that I will not treat these provisions as limiting my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations.

"Moreover, several provisions in this bill, including section 627 of Division C and section 512 of Division D, could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials in the execution of their statutory responsibilities. I have informed the Congress that I will interpret these provisions consistent with my constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

"Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

"Numerous provisions of this bill purport to condition the authority of executive branch officials to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are constitutionally impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws. Although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees appropriate and serious consideration, our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. In particular, section 1302 of Division G conditions the authority of the Librarian of Congress to transfer funds between sections of the Library upon the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have advised the Congress of my understanding that this provision does not apply to funds for the Copyright Office, which performs an executive function in administering the copyright laws.

"BARACK OBAMA"

I have bolded the Bush-speak lines that mean "Here are the parts of this law that I am signing into law rather than vetoing but fully intend not to comply with."

I have both bolded and colored red a bit wherein our Constitutional scholar in chief dictates to the First Branch of our government how spending decisions will be made.

Please don't ask me what a signing statement is or claim that Presidents Ray Gun and Clinton issued the same sort of thing that Bush and Obama have. I can't take it anymore. Instead, please catch up [URL="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28341"]here or here:

Self-Impeachment by Signing Statement

How a Bill Becomes a Signing Statement

Signing Statement prediction

DailyKoser Asks Obama to Use a Signing Statement

Obama Issues Another Signing Statement on Same Day He Speaks in Front of Constitution

The Emperor's Seven Signing Statements

Bring Back the Signing Statement

Don't Rely on Bush's Signing Statements, Obama Orders

Signing Statements More Dangerous Than Guantanamo

Is That Even Legal?

Obama Memo on Signing Statements

Another Signing Statement, Another Law Smashed, Another Smudge on the Constitution, Another Yawn From Partisanized Americans

Obama Unconstitutionally Guts Another Law With a Signing Statement

Obama Issues Signing Statement On $106B War Bill

Ho-Hum: Obama Churns Out Yet Another Signing Statement Promising to Violate a Law

Obama's Fifth Signing Statement: Anyone Noticing a Pattern Yet?[/URL]

[Peter Lemkin]

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate.

By Ralph Lopez - Posted on 25 December 2011

Disclaimer: I am now a volunteer press contact for this campaign.

From the press release:

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:

"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."

Rhodes noted that:

"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." Time to fight. "

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:

" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:

"This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges."

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.

References:

Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"
http://www.facebook.com/...

"Recalling Senators and Congressmen"
http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/...

"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"
http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/...

[Peter Lemkin]

Anonymous: Night Raid Equipment-Maker Lobbied for NDAA, Singles Out Sen. Rob Portman.
http://warisacrime.org/content/anonymous...ob-portman
By Ralph Lopez - Posted on 20 December 2011

The geeks at Anonymous probably think they are having more fun publishing the Twitter handles of the 83 senators who approved the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act, last Thursday, on Bill of Rights Day, which okays indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. But buried in the information dump is a truly amazing piece of information, which could have been put together from public records, but which Anonymous actually brought to the fore.

Anonymous singles out Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for receiving a particularly large sum from companies and PACs lobbying for the NDAA. From the RT report:

Robert J. Portman...we are truly disturbed by the ludicrous $272,853 he received from special interest groups supporting the NDAA bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Even in Washington terms, over a quarter million is a ridiculous amount of money from special interest groups supporting an issue to any single legislator. Congressmen have been bought for far less, with around $50,000 considered a serious ante at anyone's table, and much less merely keeping you in the game.

Then RT reports:

"Among the supporters of NDAA are California-based manufacturer Surefire, L.L.C., who won a $23 million contract from the Department of Defense three months ago.

OpenSecrets.org shows Surefire lobbying for HR 1540 which is the House counterpart to the Senate bill, S. 1867, which was passed on Bill of Rights Day and which two retired Marine generals affirm, in a New York Times op-ed, abolishes the Bill of Rights. Retired four-star Generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar write in opposing the new law:

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

From the guardian of democracy OpenSecrets.org:

Surefire retains DC lobbyists Upstream Consulting to do its lobbying on Capitol Hill.

So what does Surefire make? In a word, night-raid equipment, with a fresh new $23 million contract from the DoD even as we saw troops pulling out of Iraq and they are about to pull out of Afghanistan. The product catalog main categories read things like "weapon lights, helmet lights, sound suppressors, high capacity magazines." The equipment is relatively cheap, not big ticket items in Defense Department terms. That means this is a big contract. A $23 million contract would buy enough of these things to outfit maybe 50,000 soldiers.

If we are pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, what is all this stuff for? Night-raid gear? These are basically made to blind people as they awake from you busting down their door, not for open combat. In a night firefight you don't want any lights near you whatsoever. That gives the other guy an easy target.

This is as Obama is about to sign NDAA into law, if he hasn't already at the time of this writing, the unconstitutional detention provisions of which we now know he specifically requested. We know because some sharp-eyed CSPAN junkie flicked on the record switch when she heard Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) saying these words. Levin on the Senate floor during debate:

Sen. Levin (addressing Senate president): "And I'm wondering whether the senator is familiar with the fact that the language, the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section?

Is the senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language we had in the bill which passed the committee and that we removed it at the request of the administration... that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents? I'm just wondering is the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language [excluding US citizens], the absence of which, is now objected to by the senator from Illinois?"

The Hive Daily gives a fuller report on this at "Military Contractors Funded Detention Bill."

Image from Surefire marketing video:
From SureFire catalog "Weapon Lights":
SureFire Marketing Videos:

"Senate bill, S. 1867, which was passed on Bill of Rights Day and which two retired Marine generals affirm, in a New York Times op-ed, abolishes the Bill of Rights."

How exactly can a simple bill passed by Congress LEGALLY abolish the Bill of Rights, which of course is part of the Constitution that all our elected officials swear to uphold before taking office, Article VI of which clearly states that it is the Supreme Law of the Land ?

[Keith Millea]

Just thought I'd post this:

The final Senate vote tally for NDAA was 86 yes,13 no.

Here are the Senators that voted against the bill.

The 13 Senators that voted Nay on this year's version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with 86 voting Yea:
Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
One was apparently too busy to vote: Moran (R-KS)

[Albert Doyle]

Has somebody made an effort to publicly announce that a large segment of the American public thinks Bradley Manning is a hero and stands for what they believe in against a lying government guilty of war crimes and torture treason? And that Bradley served a needed purpose that was being denied the American public of transparency and exposing the doings of a government that is concealing its wrongdoing and getting away with crimes?

[Peter Lemkin]

Has somebody made an effort to publicly announce that a large segment of the American public thinks Bradley Manning is a hero and stands for what they believe in against a lying government guilty of war crimes and torture treason? And that Bradley served a needed purpose that was being denied the American public of transparency and exposing the doings of a government that is concealing its wrongdoing and getting away with crimes?

There has been some effort on the internet by various groups and websites.....it has [it seems to me] not reached a critical mass. The MSM, of course, curse him as a traitor as does the government [Obama called him 'guilty'] and the MSM's owners who need secrecy to carry out their crimes, warcrimes and bankster crimes - which meld into one. DNAA and similar legislation being passed apace since 911 and even before [if at a lesser clip] seek to put into 'law' what is being done anyway by the 'unitary executive' and deep political backroomboys - in order to make it all that much more difficult to undo via the [already controlled] Congress and Judiciary. The Executive is a puppet on very taught strings, as well. A very sad situation. We, the People have very little to work with except ourselves and as OWS is beginning to realize and Mario Savio did many decades ago...." There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!" To which I say.....as true today as in 1960s

[Ed Jewett]

From my blog entry entitled "The Third Day of Christmas" http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...entry=1394

Whoa-die maloodie....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiPb5inXCpc...layer_embedded#!


stand back and assume a comfortable, solid, well-padded seated position before opening this image link:
http://wellaware1.com/sealteam/NAVY-SEALS2.jpg

as found at

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/

****

Go down the trail laid forth above and find several nodes, one of which is the Giffords shooting [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiSgy...eature=related ] and there are others... this is either an extremely elaborate psyop-disinfo or perhaps poorly-done proof of something that may be there (but I haven't watched all the films...)(well, at least at that time I hadn't)

This seems to me to be a rent in the curtain of today's asymmetric warfare game, mediated & Cass Sunstein-ed perhaps, that somehow may be informative..... It is today's Internet crossword puzzle; in one corner, distraction; in another corner, tidbits of previously-unknown factoids; in the third corner, dazed entertainment and another gradation in someone's grid somewhere; in the fourth corner, a tiny black hole.



The Truth EXPOSED pt 2a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxz1hpiWXY4...feature=related

Ha ha... can you say "busted"?

Follow the thread.... What role do you play?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuAgZ3po738...vid=xPkuOFqDNQY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH1b2RTYGvo...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqASFYxICtw...feature=related

ha ha ... it's a freackin' repertory company

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqASFYxICtw...feature=related

this thing brings "ARG's" into focus...
[that's alternative reality games, for the uninitiated]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqASFYxICtw...feature=related

[hey, that one's high resolution]

or go here and drop to the bottom and work your way up:

http://WellAware1.com/

scroll down at that website and watch the 33:47 show entitled THE FAMILY EXPOSED ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiFtPLd93f8...layer_embedded#!
noting that at the very end the fellow offers up evidence for analysis by others....

Here's the YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/dallasgoldbug#g/u

****

Put the cat out (or in) for the night and grab your favorite beverage and snack and take a stroll through the Chiarelli videos. Check -- if you are a US citizen -- the misprision of treason legislation that pertains in your locale. Ask for a consultation with Jack White, if he is available. Take a notebook, and cross-correlate or do your own research into the Greenberg/AIG world inside deep politics. Cross reference this with other SCAD's often discussed here.