Drone Warfare and we Wonder Why they Hate us.

On October 6, an unmanned drone flew deep into Israeli territory before it was shot down. The drone, now thought to have been sent by Lebanon, who acquired it from Iran, raises awareness of the sanctity of a nation’s airspace. As the violation of airspace has traditionally been seen as an act of war, Israel sent warplanes over Lebanon the next day. This brings to light how calloused and disrespectful of the air space of other countries we have been where we indiscriminately kill our enemies on their soil.

Drones are now our favored weapon of choice and we unleash them on suspected “terrorists,” without the permission of sovereign countries, throughout the Middle East. Moreover, we assume unto ourselves the right of surveillance of all potential adversaries on their soil. We get away with this because we are the “town bully.” Such would be acts of war if done on stronger countries. According to the Washington Post we have “secret facilities, including two operational hubs on the East Coast, virtual Air Force cockpits in the Southwest and clandestine bases in at least six countries on two continents” (Under Obama, an Emerging Global Apparatus for drone killing, by Greg Miller, Dec. 27, 2011).

The paper reported, “Senior Democrats barely blink at the idea that a president from their party has assembled such a highly efficient machine for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists.” What is worse, “officially, they are not allowed to discuss” this most secretive activity although it is not denied.

President Barack Obama can argue that he did not invent this sophisticated “killing machine.” George W. Bush was the first to use it but he limited its use to Pakistan “where 44 strikes over five years had left about 400 people dead.” This is true, but Obama has amplified its use by at least four times the number of strikes and death and proliferated the death to several additional countries in northern Africa and the Middle East and the above numbers are conservative, the paper revealed.


Second Michigan county says “NO!” to federal kidnapping

OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich. (Oct. 18, 2012) – The list continues to grow.

On Thursday, yet another local government condemned detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Oakland County, Mich. Board of Commissioners unanimously approved its Support for the Preservation of Liberty resolution Thursday evening.

The Oakland County Board of Commissioners condemns in no uncertain terms Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as it 1) may repeal Posse Comitatus and authorize the President of the United States to utilize the Armed Forces of the United States to police the United States of America, 2) authorize the indefinite detention of persons captured within the United States of America without charge until the end of hostilities as purportedly authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, 3) subject persons captured within the United States of America to military tribunals, and 4) authorize the transfer of persons captured within the United States of America to a foreign country or foreign entity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112 81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of Oakland County and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in the United States Constitution.

The resolution also calls on all county agencies to refuse cooperation with any federal agents attempting to implement indefinite detention under the NDAA within the county limits.


Judge Napolitano: Secrecy vs Transparency

Judge Napolitano on Drones: “There should be a bias in favor of transparency and people knowing what the government is doing.” “Assassination by drone is profoundly unlawful and unconstitutional” “The American people have a right to know what their government is doing – in their name, to their constitution, and with their resources.”


Missouri under the rule of Pendergast: Federal power vs. State Sovereignty

In the early years of the twentieth century, Kansas City and the rest of Missouri faced a bit of a crisis situation. No, it wasn’t from the threat of outside invasion, or tyranny in Washington, but from one of our own. Tom Pendergast, who was born in St. Joseph Missouri in 1873, would become an adept Kansas City businessman who owned such companies as “Wholesale Liquor Company”, and “Ready Mix Concrete”. Through utilizing backroom deals, monopolies, crime, strong-arm tactics, and the political experience of his older brother Jim – it wasn’t long before Tom had risen through the ranks of Kansas City Power to rule as “Boss”.

However, not content with Kansas City alone, Pendergast soon sought to exert his will on State Government and beyond through the backing of such figures like Missouri Governor Lloyd C. Stark and Harry S. Truman (See note below). While Pendergast’s considerable influence would help Kansas City prosper during the Great Depression – this came at a cost of increased violence upon the streets. One such incident was the Kansas City Massacre at Union Station in 1933, in which four police officers and their prisoner, Frank Nash, was gunned down in broad daylight.

In 1934, President Roosevelt appointed local man Maurice M. Milligan (1884 – 1959) to serve as U.S. District Attorney for the Kansas City based Western District of Missouri. Mr. Milligan became active in vigorously prosecuting voter fraud in 1936, and would go on to build a case against Tom Pendergast’s political machine. Because of Milligan’s work – which centered on a $750,000 insurance payoff scam and failure to pay federal income taxes from 1927 to 1937 – Pendergast ultimately pled guilty to two charges of income tax evasion, was fined 10,000, and went to federal prison for 15 month. Mr. Milligan would later run for U.S. Senate in 1940 against Harry S. Truman, but lost.


The Fifth Amendment Protects Everyone, Not Just Citizens

by Jacob G. Hornberger via the Future of Freedom Foundation

When defenders of civil liberties condemn President Obama’s assassination program, some of them place a greater emphasis on the constitutional right of American citizens to be protected from assassination as compared to foreigners. However, as much as they might wish that the Constitution limits its protection to citizens, such is simply not the case. In protecting people from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, our American ancestors did not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. Under the express terms of the Fifth Amendment, whatever protections inure to Americans inure equally to non-citizens.

Here’s the Fifth Amendment in pertinent part: “Nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Notice that the amendment does not say: “Nor shall any citizen … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It says person.

Keep in mind that the Constitution was originally enacted without any amendments. Calling the federal government into existence, the idea was that the government would not have the power to do whatever federal officials wanted to do. Instead, the idea was that the federal government’s powers would be limited to those enumerated within the document itself. If the power wasn’t enumerated, the federal government could not exercise it.

Why were Americans so concerned about limited the powers of the federal government? Because they were concerned about calling into existence a national government that would end up doing bad things to them — such as enslaving them, confiscating their money and property, or taking them into custody, torturing them, and killing them.

Many Americans were opposed to calling the federal government into existence precisely for that reasons. They were content to continue living life under the Articles of Confederation, which had a federal government whose powers were extremely weak.

Finally, Americans went along with the deal, but only on the condition that as soon as the Constitution was adopted, it would be amended to provide for express restrictions on the powers of the federal government.


Article II Section 4: The Impeachment of Eric Holder

Through Article II section 4 of the Constitution, the people have delegated a great power to Congress to remove certain members of government from office.  A careful reading of this section shows that Congress has the power to remove not only the President and the Vice President but ALL civil officers.  One standard for removal is conviction of a high crime or misdemeanor.   The language of this clause is very clear even using legally demanding language.   This clause in the Supreme Law of our land demands Congress to act as they did when Former President Clinton was impeached for contempt.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes andMisdemeanors~ Article II Section 4 US Constitution

We know Presidents and Vice Presidents are impeachable, but have we forgotten the third category of people in this clause: all civil officers?  Eric Holder is a civil officer.  Eric Holder is a civil officer that has been found in contempt.  

The Constitution therefore DEMANDS that Congress remove Eric Holder from office.  


A Rosetta Stone for the Youth Vote?

by Adam Cahn, via www.acahnman.blogspot.com

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite….The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

– Publius, Federalist 45

Saturday, I went to an event sponsored by Rock the Vote.  It was fascinating.  I might have discovered the Rosetta Stone for cracking the youth vote.

Federalism and local control; in other words, the Tenth Amendment.

I didn’t spend much time discussing candidates and parties (except to promote Ted Cruz).  I focused instead on principles and policies.  Federalism and local control struck a chord with these kids.


Government Dependency Will End in Chaos

by Ron Paul

The media insists on characterizing statements about dependency on government handouts as controversial, but in truth such statements are absolutely correct.  It’s not that nearly half of Americans are dependent on government; it’s actually more than half.  If one includes not just people on food stamps and welfare, but also seniors on Medicare, Social Security and people employed by the government directly, the number is more like 165 million out of 308 million, which is 53%.

Some argue that Social Security and Medicare benefits are a right because people pay into these programs their whole lives, or that we need a government safety net in place for people who fall on hard times.  However, this all becomes a moot point when the funds people depend on become worthless due to government default or rampant inflation.

This is less an issue of dignity or dependence on government, and more about the deceitfulness of government promises.

The Fed recently announced that it plans to keep interest rates near zero and keep buying near worthless assets from banks indefinitely.  This enables Congress to spend without having to take deficits or the debt seriously and there is every indication they intend to spend with impunity until the system collapses.  There are no brakes on the runaway train.  The federal debt ceiling law does nothing to limit spending. The ceiling will have to be raised yet again perhaps before the year is out.  What is happening in Greece with austerity measures and riots in the street will happen here within a decade according to some realistic estimates if we do not find some way to fiscally restrain our government.


Mandate or Tax, the Federal Health Law is Still Unconstitutional

by Christina Sandefur, Goldwater Institute

Those frustrated with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal government can tax Americans who do not purchase government-approved health insurance may find some consolation going forward, because NFIB v. Sebelius will not be the last word on the federal law. Over the next few years, courts across the country will hear a number of legal challenges that share a common theme: even read as a tax, the federal health insurance law is unconstitutional.

Among those lawsuits is Coons v. Geithner, the Goldwater Institute’s defense of the constitutionally-protected right to make one’s own health care decisions.

The federal tax penalty inflicts substantial burdens on this important freedom. By forcing Americans to purchase a government-sanctioned health plan or pay a hefty fine to the IRS, the federal law makes it difficult or impossible for them to visit the doctors and get the treatments they actually want and need. And because it requires people who do not wish to purchase government-sanctioned health insurance to surrender personal medical information or pay a fine, the law intrudes on the right to privacy.


Will Oakland County Nullify the NDAA?

This Thursday, October 18, 2012, the full body of the Oakland County Commissioners will consider Commissioner Jim Runestad’s Liberty Preservation Resolution at their regularly scheduled 9:30 AM General Meeting in the Commissioner’s Auditorium located at 1200 N. Telegraph Road in Pontiac, Michigan.

The Liberty Preservation Resolution (in resistance to the indefinite detention sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA) was unanimously voted out of the General Government Committee of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on Monday, October 8 as described in this article published by the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and People Against the NDAA: Will Oakland County Nullify the NDAA?.
The resolution, which was originally crafted and subsequently revised by Blake Filippi of the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition and TAC, is a non-compliance resolution, in the tradition of the Rosa Parks method of winning Liberty – not complying with unlawful legislation as opposed to either submitting or militantly confronting the usurpers. Our goal is for the State of Michigan to ulitmately perform it’s right and duty of Nullifying indefinite detention and /or Interposing (Jamres Madison’s concept) itself between the people and the general government in D.C. A critical mass of the states in resistance tyranny has worked in the past and will do so again. This was the intent and design of the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution for the united States.

Our colleagues at the Tenth Amendment Center have recently also published the following two excellent analyses which are relevant to our project: