Banking for the Marijuana Industry – Big Banks Don't Bite

We know that in a couple years, the federal government will realize its major misstep in keeping “marijuana’ illegal, since they are missing out on a huge amount of tax revenue.  But it takes the federal government time to exercise common sense (sometimes, an infinite amount of time), and in the meantime, the 200 million people living in States and localities that have ‘legalized’ marijuana (with THC, the psychoactive component) are purchasing products – and the businesses selling those products have nowhere “legal” to put their cash.

So, approximately $3 billion is out of the “system” and can’t be monitored.  Big Brother hates that and is offering a special program where big banks can “legally” accept the money and monitor it for “suspicious” or “criminal” activity.  Big banks aren’t’ biting. I wonder why…

Let’s think about this real quick.   The federal government, who says that marijuana is “illegal” wants people who are selling marijuana to put their money in banks, so the government and big banks can monitor “criminal” activity.  Hmmm, would YOU trust the federal government?  I think that it is astounding that they actually think that people will fall for this, since the feds are always cash and asset hungry, and any person or business who is buying or selling anything with marijuana is STILL technically breaking “federal law”.  Hilarious.

I know that States are trying to help alleviate this issue, especially with the use of credit unions.  There are a lot of solutions, of course, it is just dancing around the guillotine of federal law.  Cash is a great way to maintain your privacy, and we aren’t afraid to say it!

Interview with Kevin Freeman, Author/Advisor for Economic Warfare

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v54I-om8NcI]

Tisha Casida interviews author Kevin Freeman about how individuals and States (using States’ Rights and the Tenth Amendment) can protect themselves from economic warfare and economic terrorism.  The National Security Investment Consultant Institute (NSIC) can train and equip leaders and investment managers for how to protect their community and clients – www.NSIC.org.  Refuse to be motivated by fear and take your life, your finances, and your property and wealth into your own hands.  If the federal level of government and Congress won’t act – let’s have our States and our own families DO SOMETHING about protecting our money from economic warfare and terrorism!

Legislation Doesn’t Really “Help” Us

Please unplug from the matrix – your representatives in Congress don’t necessarily know what they are doing and can’t necessarily help you.  Please let me illustrate.

Right now, in the 112th Session of Congress – there are:

3,402 Bills in the Senate
6,140 Bills in the House
523 Resolutions in the Senate
734 Resolutions in the House
51 Concurrent Resolutions in the Senate
133 Concurrent Resolutions in the House
47 Joint Resolutions in the Senate
114 Joint Resolutions in the House

Assuming that each of these pieces of legislation (that become law – which affects the justice of our Constitutional Republic, and the individual rights of the sovereign State citizens within the united States of America) is 10 pages long – that would equate to a total of 111,440 (11,144 x 10) pages of text that our representatives must read in order to know the laws and resolutions (not to mention treaties, which are not mentioned here) being proposed and enacted that affect our individual rights, sovereignty, and ability to create wealth and protect our property rights.

Rewind – only a small percentage of bills are ever passed through designated committees, and an even smaller amount of bills are passed by the House, and an even smaller number of bills are passed by the Senate.  So why are our representatives spending so much time on writing bills that don’t pass?  Well, it is to tell you about what they are doing – which is in effect – nothing.  They are doing nothing more than creating a façade about what they say they support – it comes down to the fact that very little of this ever helps any of us as individuals, small business owners, and anyone who is trying to actually “survive” and “make a living”.

It is a lie – and we must unplug from it.  There is absolutely no piece of legislation that will help you or a ‘special interest’ that you have, for that matter.  The only thing that can help us is being able to act in freedom and move regulatory functions that are inefficient at the federal level, down to the States and even into the Counties of those States where we are closer to our representation.  This is where we can hold our elected officials accountable, and not support this atrocious waste of time and taxpayer money creating hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that do nothing to get us out of our economic recession.  We have the power – we find it by unplugging from this matrix.

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

10th Amendment Musings

I again became aware of how little use the 10th Amendment is to states who have no power over their own commodities and currency.

Fresh off the presses, How Race to the Top is re-writing US Education, gives us just another example of the legal blackmail that occurs frequently in our great country.

When an elected official proudly states, for news publication, the following, I question our hopes of realizing solutions:

“These are my best hopes,” he said in May. “You see people doing things that a year ago they said they would never, ever agree to.”

(Get the Scoop Here)

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.