Campaign for Liberty Ft Lauderdale-The Revolution Continues! Message Board › News Roundup - April 25th
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
News Roundup - April 25th
Michigan House Unanimously Passes NDAA Nullification Bill
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
April 19, 2013
The New American
On Thursday, April 18, the Michigan House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill prohibiting state agents and law enforcement from participating with the federal government in the indefinite detention of its citizens.
By a vote of 109-0, state representatives joined their colleagues in the state senate in protecting citizens of the Wolverine State from being apprehended and detained in federal prisons without trial. The state senate unanimously approved an identical measure in March.
Representative Tom McMillin (R-Rochester Hills), the primary sponsor of HB 4138, spoke out in favor of his bill. “We're standing up for the rights of people in Michigan," McMillin said. “Due process should be a no-brainer.”
It should be, but it isn’t. Not anymore.
The Michigan bill is a direct nullification of provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that purport to authorize the president to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and detain American citizens inside the United States suspected by the president of aiding enemies of the homeland.
Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA purport to grant to the president the power to deploy the U.S. armed forces to apprehend and detain any person he suspects of aiding al-Qaeda or “associated forces.” Anyone imprisoned under these provisions will be denied their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including the right to due process and the right to assistance of counsel.
With regard to the latter, in 2011, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) infamously told anyone who may be detained indefinitely, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!”
If states are to perform their obligation to stand as bulwarks of liberty, lawmakers must stand and refuse to allow Senator Graham, President Obama, or any other agent of the federal government to deprive citizens of those rights given to them by God and protected by the Constitution.
The most potent weapon in the state arsenal against federal tyranny is nullification. Nullification occurs when a state holds as null, void, and of no legal effect any act of the federal government that exceeds the boundaries of its power as drawn in the Constitution.
States retain the right to act as arbiters of the constitutionality of federal acts because they formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
As Congress continues to surrender to the president all legislative, executive, and judicial power, the need for nullification is urgent, and liberty-minded citizens are encouraged to see state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of that very powerful and very constitutional principle.
Fox’s Kilmeade Suggests Constitutional Rights Should Not Apply To All American Citizens
April 24, 2013
From the April 23 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: What do we do? We sit there — F.B.I. Interrogators sit down with him for a week or two until they feel as though they got accurate information.
JOHNSON: Do you believe in indefinite detention of Americans? Because I don’t. I don’t believe we should detain – No matter how loathsome, disgusting, vile, contemptible.
KILMEADE: Two different issues.
JOHNSON: No, it’s the same issue, an American issue. No, no, no. Either we believe in the Constitution or we don’t believe in the Constitution.
KILMEADE: Not everyone is worthy of the constitutional rights that we have.
JOHNSON: Senator Graham is an expert on military commission and on the law of war.
JOHNSON: But what he’s saying is, let’s suspend civil rights and constitutional law.
KILMEADE: For public safety.
JOHNSON: In this particular case and then later we’ll reinstate it. Now, what if someone decides to do that to Brian Kilmeade, or maybe his family?
KILMEADE: What if? I’m not blowing up the subway! I’m not doing it — neither is your family.
Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized
by Anthony Gucciardi
April 23rd, 2013
Is water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet belong to major corporations and be treated as a product? Should the poor who cannot afford to pay these said corporations suffer from starvation due to their lack of financial wealth? According to the former CEO and now Chairman of the largest food product manufacturer in the world, corporations should own every drop of water on the planet — and you’re not getting any unless you pay up.
The company notorious for sending out hordes of ‘internet warriors’ to defend the company and its actions online in comments and message boards (perhaps we’ll find some below) even takes a firm stance behind Monsanto’s GMOs and their ‘proven safety’. In fact, the former Nestle CEO actually says that his idea of water privatization is very similar to Monsanto’s GMOs. In a video interview, Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe states that there has never been ‘one illness’ ever caused from the consumption of GMOs.
Watch the video below for yourself:
The way in which this sociopath clearly has zero regard for the human race outside of his own wealth and the development of Nestle, who has been caught funding attacks against GMO labeling, can be witnessed when watching and listening to his talk on the issue. This is a company that actually goes into struggling rural areas and extracts the groundwater for their bottled water products, completely destroying the water supply of the area without any compensation. In fact, they actually make rural areas in the United States foot the bill......
Watch the video below for yourself:
After U.S. Troops Leave, Armed Drones Will Patrol Afghanistan’s Skies
By Spencer Ackerman
Armed MQ-9 Reaper drones, like this one in Afghanistan, will remain in Afghanistan’s skies even after the U.S.’ longest war formally ends in 2014. Photo: U.S. Air Force
One of the major elements of Afghanistan’s air war will remain after most U.S. troops have headed home, the U.S. military command confirmed today. Armed drones, operated by the U.S., will remain over Afghanistan after 2014.
“I come back to the remotely piloted aircraft,” Air Force Maj. Gen. H.D. Polumbo, the commander of the U.S./NATO air war over Afghanistan, told reporters at the Pentagon today. “They can collect intelligence, but they also are armed. And they’re armed to be able to provide force protection to our coalition forces and then when our coalition ground force commanders, when they deem it appropriate, they can control that air-delivered munition capability from the RPAs to be put in support of the Afghans.”
The drones will not be the only air support available to the Afghan army after 2014, when most U.S. forces are slated to leave Afghanistan. But only “some fixed wing” manned fighters and bombers will remain on the battlefield, Polumbo said. Navy jets flown off of nearby aircraft carriers and Air Force planes flown from Gulf airbases will supplement them when the Afghans’ small supply of Mi-17 and Mi-35 attack helicopters, and their forthcoming Super Tucano planes, are overwhelmed.
And the drones will remain. “You’ll have that hybrid ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] as I call it, that armed ISR, remotely piloted aircraft capability all the way through ’14,” Polumbo said, “and then once [the follow-on Operation] Resolute Support mission and operations is fully understood and agreed upon by our coalition partners and our leadership, you will likely see it into 2015 to provide force protection.”
Polumbo did not mention the use of armed drones flown from Afghanistan over the border into Pakistan after 2014. Western Pakistan, the epicenter of the U.S. drone war from 2009 to 2011, experienced a surge in U.S. drone strikes at the beginning of this year. Those drones are under the control of the CIA, and U.S. military officials believe that’s likely to remain the case even if the Obama administration takes away many of the CIA’s drone operations, since there is no declared U.S. war in Pakistan. Those drones are flown from Afghanistan.
The Afghanistan war is the central battlefield for the U.S. drone campaign. In 2012, U.S. drones above Afghanistan fired their missiles 447 times, a vastly greater barrage than existed in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or anywhere else U.S. drones strike. But the military recently purged drone strike data for the Afghanistan from its public websites, part of a recent trend in opacity as the war winds down.
One of the reasons the drones will stay above Afghanistan: right now, Polumbo said, the Afghan army lacks aircraft for close air support during firefights with the Taliban. (They also lack their own spy drones, although the U.S. recently agreed to sell them those.) It’ll take years before the Afghans are trained on the Super Tucanos, expected to arrive in Afghanistan next year. And the Afghans’ capability for conducting air assault missions with their own helicopter fleet is also minuscule, as only a “small percentage” of air assault missions come from Afghan forces without U.S. support. Right now, Polumbo said, the U.S. only provides its own fixed-wing air support to Afghans in “the most significant or dire of circumstances,” as a major mission of U.S. forces now is to sponsor Afghan independence.
But the post-2014 drones, Polumbo explained, will not be operated by the Afghans. They’ll remain under the control of U.S. military officials, and most likely piloted thousands of miles away at Air Force bases in Nevada and New Mexico. That supposedly postwar U.S. force, after 2014, will have one thing in common with the force of today: it’ll rely significantly on flying, lethal robots.
He fought and defeated SOPA, a law similar to
CISPA which Congress just passed while we
were all paying attention to the goings on in
Swartz was also a Harvard-recognized
expert on institutional corruption.
The Feds took over a minor case he was involved
with and turned it into potential multi-decade
prison sentence for him.
The claim is that he committed suicide in despair
over the case. The reality is he was in a positive state
of mind when he died and he was a fighter.
So how did he really die?