Mandatory Vaccinations for the Greater Good of Society

It does not matter if our mandatory vaccinations hurt, deform, impair or kills your child. The reason it doesn’t matter is that your child is sacrificing their health or their life is for the greater good of society that will benefit from this vaccine.

Do you think this sounds extreme? Let me show you an excerpt from the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics.

 

“If progression of promising vaccines from the lab to the clinic is to remain unaffected and financial inducement is an ethically unacceptable solution to the recruitment shortage, other strategies need to be considered. Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration. Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt-out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as nondonors are presumed to consent to donation) [10], and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon. In these examples, the risks or inconvenience to an individual are usually limited and minor. Mandatory involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military conscription, a policy operating today in 66 countries. In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society.”

 

So, they have a shortage of citizens who are willing to roll up their sleeve to get a shot full of something that the citizens have no idea what effects it will have, so “the professionals” are considering “COMPULSORY INVOLVEMENT that works like MILITARY CONSCRPTION”? Really? I don’t think so – there is no way you (whoever you are writing and participating in this ludicrous discussion) will EVER make a vaccine mandatory, for myself and especially for any child that is under my care. You can have your vaccinations, but I will CHOOSE if I am taking them, and I will CHOOSE for that child if they are taking them. And if you plan on attempting to stick me with your toxic substance, as my good friend and mentor Michael Badnarik said, “you bring the syringe, I’ll bring my .45, and we’ll see who makes a bigger hole”. Not gonna happen.

I would say this is “out of control” but that would be giving these people way too much credit. They can write about what they are going to do all day long, I want to see them try and enforce it, because if I know my community, and if I know the American people, we will put a stop to this before it ever becomes an actual issue.

 

We have “professional”, “publically-funded” think-tanks and organizations coming up with this stuff, and it is time we realize that there are no professionals that can make choices for what we put in and on our bodies. Humans have existed for quite awhile without the atrocious and heavy hand of government mandating to them what they need to do to be healthy, and it has worked out quite well. We are going to get back to a system of common sense and integrity. The American people will not have a conscription process for mandatory vaccines on my watch.

 

Thank you to the good folks at Freedom Link Radio for sending us this link!

 

 

 

Republic versus Democracy – Why We Should NOT Be Promoting Democracy

We hear about our country’s stellar democracy and how important it is that we, the United States of America, “promote” (via war oftentimes) democracy to other countries.  People hear this and think that democracy is equivalent to freedom; of course for anyone who knows the true intention of (most of) the Founding Fathers, we understand that we shouldn’t be living in and upholding a democracy – it is a republic that is the purest form of government for protecting individual rights.

Republic: Where people vote for representatives to represent them and protect their individual rights.  Our representatives are not supposed to go to Washington to write and enact legislation that benefits majorities and minorities, or institutes and enforces the concept of collective rights – the only task of our representatives is to protect and defend the individual rights of the American people.

Democracy: Where everyone votes on everything – every issue, every problem, every concept.  However, when everyone votes on everything, the majority continuously erodes the minority – that minority eventually does not exist – and at that point, it is tyranny.  The small voice – the minority – eventually goes away – because the votes of the representatives form collective rights.  We vote for representatives that are supposed to represent us and our individual rights.  When representatives vote on every issue that may affect the American people (forming collective rights of special groups of people), this is different than simply representing them and protecting individual rights versus collective rights.  This is where our “republic” is today – our representatives vote on issues that protect collective rights instead of individual rights.

Now, we are far away from this concept of a republic.  Most congressional and presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle continuously “win the hearts and minds” of the people by promising what they will do for majorities and minorities – promising to protect the interest of corporations, promising to protect the interest of unions (as an example). The problem is that this is the antithesis of protecting individual rights.  The protection of special interests eventually leads to the division of people based on their emotions on social issues (which the federal government should have no part of).  The protected interest of certain groups, factions or political parties charges the debates amongst all people; all people who can generally agree on the fact that individual rights are a good thing to be protected (but this is not what we are focusing on when we argue back and forth about social or group issues).

The States that are in our Union of States, which makes up the United States of America, is a unique form of government, called a republic.  Our Republic has been under attack before, during, and immediately after the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America.  The only thing that protects that Republic is the very thing the Republic defends – that is the individual rights of the American people.  Democracy, which has been touted by Republicans and Democrats for many years, is a dangerous form of government that eventually erodes away individual liberties because it relies on the will of a majority.  This will always lead to tyranny.

Look at our country – do our representatives go to Washington, D.C. to protect our individual rights?  Or do our representatives go to write legislation that benefits a group?  Do presidential and congressional candidates campaign on promises of protecting your individual liberties?  Or do presidential and congressional candidates (sans Ron Paul) campaign on promises of protecting special interest groups – groups of people who are the “minority”, groups of people who want the government involved in social issues?

We are revolutionary – the American spirit runs pure in the hearts of many people of this great Republic.  The beauty of this is, it is not uniquely American – it is human – liberty and freedoms endowed by our Creator are an inherent part of the blessings of walking this planet.

Let us remember that spirit and remember the important of individual rights this election – look for candidates that promise to protect your individual rights, as that is the key to prosperity and peace.

Model to Nullify the NDAA using State Legislatures, City Councils, and/or County Commissioners

This is the verbiage that was developed by the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition, specifically Mr. Blake A. Filippi,  in an effort to empower states, counties, and localities to take control of the constitutionality of their own law enforcement and law enforcements’ sworn oath of office, which protects the American people from indefinite detainment without due process.  This language can be changed to fit the specifics of other states, counties, and municipalities, and we want to see as many people as possible taking advantage of empowering each other at a state and local level to stop the unconstitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Enemy Expatriation Act.  Thank you to the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition for making this wonderful resource available to our country.

First, is the Intro Letter – the actual Model and Resolution are beneath…

Dear Compatriot,

Thank you for visiting the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition (RILC) and downloading this important piece of model legislation as a framework for state and local nullification of the 2012 Nation Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA repeals Posse Comitatus and purports to authorize the Office of the President of the United States to:
•    Utilize the Armed Forces of the United States to police United States citizens and lawful resident aliens within the United States;
•    Indefinitely detain United States citizens and lawful resident aliens suspected of supporting terrorism, without charge or trial, until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 2001 P.L. 107-40;
•    Subject those United States citizens and lawful resident aliens to military tribunals; and
•    Transfer those United States Citizens and lawful resident aliens to a foreign country or foreign entity.

Such executive powers are unconstitutional and repugnant to a free society. State and local governments are duty-bound to respond immediately to this unconstitutional and un-American affront to Liberty and Due Process. We must not wait for the Federal Courts to strike down this law; if the Courts will even act at all. Indeed, our Supreme Court has consistently avoided questions of Executive power and American Liberties during the age of terrorism: the Supreme Court still has not ruled upon the most controversial provisions of the “Patriot Act,” and it did would not take up the question of military detainment of United States citizens in the case of Jose Padilla. Conscientious
citizens, like you, must demonstrate to state and local governments that provisions of the NDAA are unconstitutional and antithetical to the United States, and that legislation nullifying the NDAA is required.
To these ends, the RILC has drafted broad model legislation, which clearly lays forth the offensive portions of the NDAA and the state and federal constitutional provisions it violates. The legislation includes a resolution that condemns section 1021 of the NDAA. It further provides that state/county/local officials and employees may not knowingly cooperate with an investigation or detainment of a United States citizen or lawful resident alien by, or by in-part, the Armed Forced of the United States. The Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution cannot overturn this provision because the Federal Government is not able to force state and local government officials to take affirmative acts, in this case, the cooperation with an investigation and/or detainment by the Armed Forced of the United States.
Next, the legislation goes one big step further and renders it unlawful for members of the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct investigations or detainments of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause may override this provision. However, the RILC takes the position that the Federal Government cannot shred the most fundamental portions of the Constitution through indefinite detainment without charge, including the rights to Habeas Corpus and Due Process, and then seek to utilize the same Constitution’s Supremacy Clause to legitimize those patently unconstitutional government acts. Inclusion of the prohibition on investigations and detainment is important because it provides local police and sheriffs with color of authority to halt investigations and detainments by the United States Armed forces.
Finally, the legislation provides criminal penalties for violation of its provisions; both for local officials and members of the Armed Forces of the United States. These penalties are not severe because, in most states, municipalities are capped at the criminal penalties that can be assessed through ordinance. The penalties can be changed according to your jurisdiction, and if this legislation is submitted to a state legislature, there is more authority to enact stiff penalties. The same Supremacy Cause issues still apply to criminal prosecutions of members of the Armed Forced of the United States.
Of course, RILC advocates passage of the model legislation’s resolution as well as all prohibitions and penalties. Your local legislative body may decline such a sweeping enactment. Advocate well, and push for as much inclusion as possible, knowing that some provisions may not be passed.
RILC has geared this piece of legislation to the beautiful state of Rhode Island, specifically including the provisions of the Rhode Island Constitution offended by the NDAA. In order to conform to your state, you should simply replace the Rhode Island constitutional provisions with your state constitutional provisions. Also, wherever text is underlined, you need to insert the term appropriate to your forum. For instance, state legislatures pass Acts, while local municipalities pass Ordinances. Not to worry, any legislative body desirous of passing the model legislation will have staff attorneys whom will redraft the legislation to conform to local standards, codification rules, etc… RILC’s model legislation serves as comprehensive framework for presentation and discussion, and may be adjusted to reflect local standards and political realties.
One final note: Please be strategic about introducing NDAA nullification legislation. Build coalitions, talk to religious groups, tea party groups, the occupy movement, progressives and conservatives. Opposition to the NDAA transcends political parties and philosophies. Yet, local elected officials will be wary about the appearance of challenging the Federal Government. Your elected officials must have the community behind them in order to take the leap. Do the ground work. Peace and much success!

In Liberty,
Blake A. Filippi
Rhode Island Liberty Coalition

*This Model Act is the Property of the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition and any replication or reproduction for purposes other than herein authorized is strictly forbidden. Thanks!

**This model legislation is not intended as legal advice or an offer of legal advice. No attorney-client relationship has been created by publication of this model act.

(Portions underlined must be changed to reflect your forum)

 

A RESOLUTION Condemning Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act;

 

AN (ACT or ORDINANCE) Rendering it Unlawful for (Your: State Municipality or County) Officials and Employees to Cooperate With an Investigation and/or Detainment of United States Citizens and resident legal aliens by, or by in-part, the Armed Forces of the United States; and

 

AN (ACT or ORDINANCE) Rendering it Unlawful for Individuals in the Armed Forces of the United States to Conduct Investigations or Detainments Within (Your: State Municipality or County) of United States Citizens and resident legal aliens,

. . . .

 

WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States passed the National Defense Authorization Act, 2011 P.L. 112-81, (“2012 NDAA”) for Fiscal Year 2012 on December 15, 2011;

 

WHEREAS, the President of the United States of America signed the 2012 NDAA into law on December 31, 2011;

 

WHEREAS, Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA requires the Armed Forces of the United States to detain, pending disposition according to the Law of War, any person involved in, or whom provided substantial support to, terrorism or belligerent acts against the United States, and whom is a member of Al-Qaeda or an associated force;

 

WHEREAS, Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA specifically excludes United States citizens, and lawful resident aliens for conduct occurring within the United States, from its mandatory detention provisions;

 

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports to authorize, but does not require, the President of the United States to utilize the armed forces of the United States to detain persons the President suspects were part of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces;

 

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports to authorize, but does not require, the President of the United States, through the Armed Forces of the United States, to dispose of such detained persons according to the Law of War, which may include but is not limited to: (1) indefinite detention without charge or trial until the end of hostilities authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, 2001 P.L. 107-40, (2) prosecution through a Military Commission, or (3) transfer to a foreign country or foreign entity.

 

WHEREAS, unlike Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, Section 1021 makes no specific exclusion for United States citizens and lawful resident aliens for conduct occurring within the United States;

 

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA seeks to preserve existing law and authorities pertaining to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, and any other person captured in the United States, but does not specify what such existing law or authorities are;

 

WHEREAS, the specific exclusion of application to United States citizens and lawful resident aliens contained in Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, and the absence of such exclusion in Section 1021 of the NDAA, strongly implies that the provisions of Section 1021 are intended to apply to United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, whether or not they are captured in the United States;

 

WHEREAS, the Office of the President of the United States, under both the administrations of George W. Bush and Barak H. Obama, has asserted the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows the Office of the President to indefinitely detain without charge United States Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured in the United States;

 

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has not decided whether the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows the Office of the President to indefinitely detain without charge United States Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured in the United States;

 

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports enlarge the scope of the those persons the Office of the President may indefinitely detain beyond those responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and those who harbored them, as purportedly authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, to now include “[a] person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces;”

 

WHEREAS, United States Senator Carl Levin declared in colloquy on the floor of the United States Senate that the original 2012 NDAA provided that section 1021 (then section 1031 prior to final drafting) specifically would not apply to United States citizens, but that the Office of the President of the United States had requested that such restriction be removed from the 2012 NDAA;

 

WHEREAS, during debate within the Senate and before the passage of the 2012 NDAA, United States Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment intended to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, which was rejected by a vote of 38–60;

 

WHEREAS, United States Senator John McCain and United States Senator Lindsey Graham declared in colloquies on the floor of the United States Senate that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA authorized the indefinite detention of United States Citizens captured within the United States by the Armed Forces of the United States;

 

WHEREAS, United States Senator Lindsey Graham declared in colloquy on the floor of the United States Senate that the United States homeland is now part of “the battlefield;”

 

WHEREAS, Policing the citizenry of the United States of America by the Armed Forces of the United States, as purportedly authorized by the 2012 NDAA, overturns the Posse Comitatus doctrine and is repugnant to a free society;

 

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as it purports to authorize, 1) detainment of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge, 2) military tribunals for United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America, and 3) the transfer of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America to foreign jurisdictions, is violative of the following rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America;

  • Article I Section 9, Clause 2’s right to seek Writ of Habeas Corpus;
  • The First Amendment’s right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;
  • The Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures;
  • The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from charge for an infamous or capitol crime until presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury;
  • The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law;
  • The Sixth Amendment’s right in criminal prosecutions to enjoy a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the State and District where the crime shall have been committed;
  • The Sixth Amendment’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
  • The Sixth Amendment’s right confront witnesses;
  • The Sixth Amendment’s right to Counsel;
  • The Eighth Amendment’s right to be free from excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment;
  • The Fourteenth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law;

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as it purports to authorize, 1) detainment of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge or trial, 2) military tribunals for United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America, and 3) the transfer of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America to foreign jurisdictions, is repugnant to the following rights enshrined in the (Rhode Island) Constitution:

  • Article I Section 2’s right to be free from deprivation of life or liberty without Due Process of law;
  • Article I Section 5’s right to have prompt recourse to the laws for all injuries to one’s person;
  • Article I Section 6’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure;
  • Article I Section 7’s right to be free from capital charge absent a grand jury indictment, or felony charge absent grand jury indictment absent information signed by the attorney general;
  • Article I, Section 8’s right to be free from excessive bail;
  • Article I Section 9’s right to bail and right to Habeas Corpus;
  • Article I Section 10’s right to a speedy pubic trial by an impartial jury, right to have the assistance of counsel, and the right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, unless by the judgment of peers;
  • Article I Section 14’s right to be presumed innocent until pronounced guilty by the law;
  • Article I Section 15’s right to a trial by Jury;
  • Article I Section 18’s requirement that the military authority is subordinate to the civil authority;

 

WHEREAS, the members of this (Legislature, Town Council, County Government, etc..) have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of (Rhode Island);

 

WHEREAS, this (Legislature, Town Council, County Government, etc..) opposes any and all rules, laws, regulations, bill language or executive orders, which amount to an overreach of the federal government and which effectively take away civil liberties;

 

WHEREAS, it is indisputable that the threat of terrorism is real, and that the full force of appropriate and constitutional law must be used to defeat this threat; however, winning the war against terror cannot come at the great expense of mitigating basic, fundamental, constitutional rights;

 

WHEREAS, undermining our own Constitutional rights serves only to concede to the terrorists’ demands of changing the fabric of what made the United States of America a country of freedom, liberty and opportunity.

. . . .

 

NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the (Legislature, City Council, etc…) of the (Your State, Municipality or County), condemns in no uncertain terms Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as it purports to 1) repeal Posse Comitatus and authorize the President of the United States to utilize the Armed Forces of the United States to police United States citizens and lawful resident aliens within the United States of America, 2) indefinitely detain United States citizens and lawful resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge until the end of hostilities authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, 3) subject American Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured within the United States of America to military tribunals, and 4) transfer American Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured within the United States of America to a foreign country or foreign entity;

 

NOW THEREFORE,

 

1. No (state, county or municipal) official or employee, acting in the capacity of a (state, county or municipal) official or employee, shall knowingly cooperate with an investigation and/or detainment of a United States citizen or lawful resident alien located within the United States America by, or by in-part, the Armed Force of the United States of America, excepting those of the United States Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, and excepting National Guard units and State Defense Forces while under the authority of the governor of the State of (Your State), and excepting internal investigations and detainments by the Armed Forces of the United States of America of active duty members of the Armed Forces of the United States of America;

 

2. No member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, nor any person acting directly with, or on behalf of, the Armed Forces of the United States of America, excepting those of the United States Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, and excepting National Guard units and State Defense Forces while under the authority of the governor of the State of (Your State), and excepting internal investigations and detainments by the Armed Forces of the United States of America of active duty members of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, shall conduct investigations and/or detainments within (Your State, County or Municipality) of United States citizens and lawful resident aliens;

 

3. Any violation of the preceding sections #1 or #2 shall be punishable a fine not to exceed $500.00 and/or six (6) months in jail.

 

4. Severability: If any provision or portion of this (Act or Ordinance) is or becomes illegal, such illegality shall not affect the remaining provisions.

El Paso County Resolution – A Model for Other Counties Around the Country

This resolution was passed in El Paso County which protects their Colorado Citizens from the unconstitutional intrusion of federal agencies, including the Armed Forces.  The PDF of the El Paso County Resolution can be downloaded HERE.

Resolution to Preserve Habeas Corpus and Civil Liberties

WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 30-10-101(1), 30-11-103, and 30-11-107, the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado (“County” or “Board”), has the legislative authority to manage the concerns of the County and to exercise such other and further powers as are conferred by law; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado, opposes any and all rules, laws, regulations, bill language or executive orders, which amount to an overreach of the federal government and which effectively take away civil liberties; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Colorado State Constitution, Article 12, Section 8, all elected officials are mandated to “take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter;” and the El Paso County Commissioners subscribe to uphold this oath of office by the adoption of this Resolution, and

WHEREAS, the El Paso County Commissioners resolve that any rules, laws, regulations, bill language or executive order going against Habeas corpus or the civil liberties of El Paso County citizens granted under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are hereby declared to be invalid and shall not be recognized and are specifically rejected and shall be considered null and void and of no effect. Therefore, intervention in legislative issues are both appropriate and necessary to ensure that citizens have an opportunity to be heard and represented.

WHEREAS, One of our most fundamental rights as American citizens is to be free from unreasonable detention without due process of law, a right afforded to us by our Founding Fathers and guaranteed to us by over two centuries of sacrifice by our men and women in the Armed Forces whom we daily recognize and honor; and

WHEREAS, Sections 1021 and 1022 (or any other wording as the bill is modified) of the 2011 United States Senate National Defense Authorization Act, Bill Number SB1867, as proposed, provide that in limited circumstances, an American citizen may be detained by our own United States government and by our Armed Forces, which detention could last, without trial until the end of the hostilities currently authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force; and

WHEREAS, Sections 1021 and 1022 (or any other wording as the bill is modified) of the National Defense Authorization Bill, SB 1867, jeopardize the fundamental rights of American citizens to remain free from detention without due process and the right to habeas corpus in direct contravention of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and the United States and Colorado Constitutions; and

WHEREAS, it is indisputable that the threat of homeland and international terrorism is both real and viable, and that the full force of appropriate and constitutional law must be used to defeat this threat so that terror never wins; however, winning the war against terror cannot come at the great expense of mitigating basic, fundamental, constitutional rights using rules, laws, regulations, bill language or executive orders; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado, wholeheartedly supports the United States military and dutifully recognizes the importance of the National Defense Authorization Act, SB1867, as an appropriations bill and as a bill necessary to support the efforts of our military to both serve and protect the people of this great Nation with the exclusion of sections 1021 and 1022; and

WHEREAS, undermining our own Constitutional rights serves only to concede to the terrorists’ demands of changing the fabric of what made the United States of America a country of freedom, liberty and opportunity; and

WHEREAS, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office is in agreement with this resolution and the goals and purposes herein stated and agrees to undertake all appropriate efforts to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens; and

BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado, is in opposition to Sections 1021 and 1022 of the United States Senate National Defense Authorization Act, and does hereby support the Colorado Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America and all the freedoms and guarantees as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers and as provided by the brave efforts of the members of our Armed Forces

 

DONE THIS 15th day of December, 2011, at Colorado Springs, Colorado.

 

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO

_____________________________________

Amy Lathen, Chair

_____________________________________

Sallie Clark, Vice Chair

_____________________________________

Dennis Hisey, Member

_____________________________________

Darryl Glenn, Member

_____________________________________

Peggy Littleton, Member

 

ATTEST:

_______________________________

Wayne W. Williams

County Clerk and Recorder

Nullifying the NDAA – List of Solutions for You and Your Community

At a community, county, and State level – it is possible for people around this country to make sure that their Individual rights are protected.

You can write letters to your sheriffs

You can have your counties adopt a resolution

You can have your State representatives present resolutions

And the most important thing is to NEVER EVER BE AFRAID.

Empower yourself with what you need to live a strong, healthy, and happy life, and rest assured that we will restore liberty in this great country.

Nullify the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Both Political Parties in Washington, D.C. are completely out of touch with the people.  The Republicans and the Democrats are discussing and passing legislation that should never have even be a talking point on the floor of the Congress, let alone law.  They took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and look at what they have done!  Are they trying to “protect us” or is something more sinister going on?  Conspiracy is certainly on the minds of Americans these days as both parties support and pass unconstitutional and yes, treasonous legislation against the American people.  What is happening?

WE MUST stop them!   I am talking about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Anyone who reads this assault on us is asking “WHY do we need this type of law”?  How is it that they think we need this?  What are they not telling us?  We all like to call our elected officials ‘stupid’ at times but I am certain they are not stupid enough to not have a plan and understand what is going on here.  Why does this have so little opposition from either party?  Why is it not talked about in our “main-stream” news media?

Enough!  Every state, county, and city must draft legislation to nullify this unconstitutional declaration of war against Americans.  They can’t even call it a war against terror anymore because they just declared “us” the American people terrorists, extremists, committing “belligerent acts”.  They clearly have drawn the line, it is our elected officials against the American people.  How is this possible?  Why would they do this?  Check out the actual verbiage (Title X, Subtitle D, Sections 1021 and 1022 – Page 81 of 371) and you decide.  It is now WAR – they provoked and declared it.

Our founding document The Constitution of the United States of America means nothing to them anymore or they would not have drafted or passed this treasonous act.  They have failed to uphold their oath of office.  So do we follow them or follow the Constitution?  The Constitution warns against what they have done to us and clearly states what is necessary for “we the people” to protect ourselves from the disastrous effects of power freaks, cowards, and dictators.  Read the bill and decide for yourself.

We can combat all of this in a non-violent way.  But you must get off the couch and put down the TV remote.  Americans have become complacent and think it’s all gonna be okay.  Time to walk the walk and stop screaming at the television which goes on deaf ears and does nothing to empower yourself.  This is exactly why I am running for Congress – to protect our liberty and freedom from an oppressive government.  Every state has the opportunity to fight back and I am fighting for Coloradans.  This is not a “sky is falling message”, this is real and in force since New Years Eve 2012.  You have already lost your liberty and freedom, it is just not enforced yet.  Elect me to restore your liberty and freedom and stop this egregious act against YOU and all of us.  I stand for you and all of Colorado, I will not stand down.  I got off the couch, please join me.

Enemy Expatriation Act – A Bad Band-Aid for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Unbelievably, or, perhaps in the fashion of presenting treasonous legislation this year, the Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166 and S. 1698) has been sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA).  It just goes to show that a party or label can never define what a person will actually do in office.

This bill gives the United States government the power to take away American’s citizenship if that person is considered to be “hostile” against the United States.  It changes the verbiage in U.S. Code 1481.   If you “compare 3166 to 1481 and the change is small. The new section makes no reference to being convicted as it does in section (7).”  No conviction means no opportunity to be proven guilty and have innocence beforehand.  It also means no due-process and no chance to attempt to fight back using the “court of law”.

So, even though there is “revised” language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that is supposed to exclude American citizens from being detained indefinitely without due-process, the passage of the Enemy Expatriation Act gives the United States government the ability to just strip away your citizenship if you are considered “hostile”.  And then you can be treated like someone who is not a citizen – with no opportunity for redress, with no conviction using the court of “law”, and with NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  Sound like a band-aid?  Sound like a loop-hole?  Sound like bad news for freedom of speech and freedom to assemble?

Yes – you can be stripped of your citizenship for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States”.  Well, what is a hostility?  Is it being a member of the Tea Party?  Someone who participates in the Occupy Wall Street movement?  Someone who invests in lead, silver, and gold?  A person running for Congress as a Constitutionalist?  You see, the devil lies in the definition of “hostility” – because who is defining it other than the people in charge of enforcing the law?  And that can be really bad for liberty when you are trying to make positive changes in government.

It is almost like they are planning on a lot of people being REALLY MAD at the U.S. government.  I wonder why?  Could it be that a lot of people are angry?  Could it be that there are some very bad things going on inside of the U.S. government?  Could it be that the American people have been sold out by many of their ‘representatives’ and that these politicians are scared that the American people are going to be hostile to them because they sold us out?

I wonder if words are considered hostile?  I sure hope so, and I hope that this gets to the powers that be – I AM NOT THE ENEMY AND IF YOU EVER, EVER TAKE ME AWAY FOR SPEAKING OUT WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING WRONG, I WILL MAKE SURE THERE IS HELL TO PAY.  I am not the enemy.  And my fellow Americans are not the enemies – the enemies are those who call us liberty-loving, constitution-waving, gun-carrying, heirloom-seed storing people dangerous.  We are just fulfilling our duty to hold our representatives feet to the fire.

We are fighting back.  We are winning.  The reason is that WE ARE NOT THE ENEMIES, we are seekers of truth and people who are willing to stand up for our God-given rights. Carry on!

Read the creation of our leadership in D.C. here:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-1698

Reference: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/

Another Resource:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10512-bill-would-strip-citizenship-from-any-engaging-in-hostilities-against-us

A Place for the Arts in Politics and War

Many of us have been blessed to collide with the visual or performing arts in one case or another over our lifetimes. Maybe we have participated in them ourselves, or know family members or friends who create something that we get to enjoy and see the labors of their love.

I am very lucky to have been a participant in the arts from a very young age and have many friends who to this day are artists of one nature or another. To calm my mind and for my own enjoyment, I love to play the piano.

Thanks to a public education system that does not advance any type of learning – critical thinking, history, or appreciation for the arts – much of our country’s population has lost exposure to what makes us human, and that is the ability to express ourselves in a creative manner.

Artists, whether it be people who document stories and tales, actors and actresses who take on the roles of historical figures, painters and sculptors who encapsulate feelings and expressions, or musicians that elevate the senses and create new neurological pathways in our brains (it is very scientific how music affects our auditory cortex and cerebellum), all engage in creative processes that help to “open our minds”. That is the power of the arts, and in that power we become free.

In our day-to-day drive for survival, it is easy to throw away the arts as a tertiary and completely unnecessary act of selfishness that has no real meaning in our lives. Nothing is further from the truth. The balance of our tactical brains with the arts that literally help to free our minds, is an important part of being human. And being human is something that many of us lack right now.

An instance of this is the fear and terror used with war. The War on Terror has been going on for over a decade. Over 4,015 days of constant inundation and indoctrination of fear, helplessness, and the subtle loss of our liberties by legislation like the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We are living in fear, we are losing our right to express ourselves, and this loss of the arts in our society may just be a creative vehicle to save us.

Young kids who join gangs, or people who use recreational drugs, or our troops who are coming back from the gory and catastrophic wars who has psychological problems and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), are crying out for ways to express themselves. They are begging our communities and country to give them vehicles to let them express themselves as humans. They are lost souls seeking ways to feel and express their emotions – ways to feel and express love. Love, the solution to all things, that is not a talking point of most of our politicians.

I see the faces, and I know the pain of these innocent souls who need some form of expression to be and feel human. And in this expression, we find peace and love; and it would not hurt our world a bit to feel more love for these people who need it right now.

Local Governments Working With Business to Help People

Here’s a concept – what happens when you find representatives that make forward-thinking decisions that help positively affect people, the environment, and businesses’ bottom line?   Something called local economic development takes place, and it is good for people’s standard of living and quality of life when they live in these communities where they are able to accomplish such things. It is completely possible to create a win-win for all people involved, and this is where the focus should be.

Many functions of the federal government can be “pushed down” to the local level where taxpayers and voters can be closer to the decision-making and have greater participation in the processes. This helps keeps these processes transparent. That’s a good thing. Transparency and accountability in government are a good thing – I think we can all agree on that.

In my own business I have worked with many people involved in the recycling industry. Sometimes for-profit businesses are able to effectively work with local governments to create services that fill a need for people. To be truly sustainable, these services eventually have to be able to create the revenue streams on their own to be functional – people have to be willing to pay for that service. Being subsidized by taxpayer money on a continual basis indicates that this may be a product or service that people don’t want. It all depends on the community, the people, the businesses, and the leadership. There are many variables, and never a one-size-fits-all solution.

Yesterday I was able to make a trip to Summit County (not in our congressional district) with a small business owner who recycles paint. We went to pick up the paint that had been turned in from Summit County residents, and brought that paint back to Pueblo County (in our congressional district), where it is mixed together to create various earth-toned paint, which is then sold for $3/gallon to people looking for inexpensive paint. This allows the small business owner to still make a profit, yet provide a service for low-income residents of Pueblo County and beyond. This paint can be shipped all over the country. This is good for business

People recycle the paint in Summit County, then Summit County pays the small business owner to pick it up, and then the small business owner re-packages and sells his service. The paint does not end up in the landfill, and people get a product for a good price. A win-win. And it includes local governments working with small business owners.

Oftentimes us liberty-minded folks get very adamant about the dangers of an unrestrained federal government – and I am there in that fight. The Republicans and the Democrats in Washington, D.C. are not doing everything in their power to create economic development for it’s citizens (the best way is by letting businesses do their thing). It is also very important at the same time to point out positive and proactive local governments and officials that are actually doing something to help and protect their citizens. When you have people with integrity in government, that sure helps solve many of our problems.

 

 

CREATIVE DESIGN FROM BROOKLYN

Big or small, we’ve got a solution when you need it. Our advanced service and support tools provide step-by-stepinstructions without being put on hold or waiting in line.