Page 1

Utah Lawmakers Urge Congress to Repeal ‘Indefinite Detention’ Law Paul Joseph Watson Monday, February 27, 2012 Latest state to revolt against kidnapping provisions of NDAA Utah has become the latest state to revolt against the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), introducing a resolution urging Congress to repeal the law that allows Americans to be incarcerated without trial. Following in the footsteps of Virginia, which earlier this month passed a House bill that codifies noncompliance with the “kidnapping provisions” of section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, the resolution “expresses disapproval” of the same provisions, noting that they serve to “violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.” “Be it further resolved that the Legislature of the State of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, urges the United States Congress to repeal or clarify Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA to protect the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Utah Constitution,” states the resolution (PDF). The NDAA bill, which was signed into law by President Obama under the radar on New Years Eve while he was on vacation in Kailua, hands the government power to “allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.” Republican Senator Todd Weiler, the chief sponsor of the resolution, fears the indefinite detention provisions of the bill could be used against American citizens just as the Patriot Act has been used against non-terrorists, telling the Salt Lake Tribune, “I have a legitimate fear this National Defense Authorization law will do the same

thing.” Emphasizing how opposition to the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA crosses partisan lines, both the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative Utah Eagle Forum expressed their support for the resolution. “Our concern is in the definition of ‘terrorist,’ ” the Eagle’s Forum’s Dalane England told the Salt Lake Tribune. “Our current administration has already called people pushing back against the current administration terrorists.” Indeed, under the Obama administration, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center have jointly identified those described as “homegrown violent extremists” by characterizing criticism of government as an indication of terrorism. In all 62 of the cases reviewed by those agencies recently, such “homegrown terrorists” were found to have “increasingly spoke out against the government” and “blamed the government for perceived problems”. Despite Obama’s signing statement claiming he would not use the bill to detain American citizens without trial, it was the administration itself which demanded the ‘kidnapping’ provisions apply to US citizens and not merely foreign terrorists. The anti-NDAA resolution, which is currently making its way through the Utah House, could be the precursor for a binding legislation along similar lines to the bill passed in Virginia. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, which has been tracking the nationwide revolt against the NDAA, a total of nine states have now introduced resolutions or bills in opposition to the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Afghanistan Invasion and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 Michael S. Rozeff 1. LRC Blog February 27, 2012 The New York Times has this quote: “Americans are invaders, and jihad against Americans is an obligation,” from Abdul Sattar Khawasi, a member of Parliament from the Ghorband district in Parwan Province. Now compare the U.S. Constitution. It grants Congress the power to repel invasions: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The close correspondence of Khawasi’s remark with the U.S. Constitution is of interest. What’s an invasion? “An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.” Does this apply to the US and NATO entering and fighting in Afghanistan these last 11 years? Yes. By the way, it might well be that, apart from certain well-defined instances of piracy on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations, all the US armed forces are constitutionally restricted to repelling invasions and that such was the original intent of the Constitution. All the U.S. forces stationed overseas may be unconstitutional.

Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights by Bob Barr Daily Caller February 27, 2012 Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights. In other words, despite the victories in the Supreme Court, the battle for Second Amendment rights in America is far from over. There is perhaps no better reminder of this unfortunate state of affairs than a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, an appointee of President Barack Obama. Two pro-Second

Amendment groups — the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Illinois Carry — filed a lawsuit last May challenging the ban on carrying concealed guns in the Land of Lincoln, which is the only state with a complete ban on the books. The commonsense basis for the lawsuit is that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry deprives citizens of the fundamental right of self-defense, simply because they are in public. While Judge Myerscough conceded the Second Amendment protects a “general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public,” she tossed out the lawsuit, claiming that the “Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.” As absurd as this federal judge’s ruling appears on the surface, it unfortunately finds some basis in the inchoate opinion issued four years ago by the nation’s high court in Heller. While the five-member majority in that case importantly recognized the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms — and in so finding, invalidated the District’s restrictive gun control ordinance — the actual language of the opinion has been interpreted now to recognize the right to possess a firearm only inside one’s home. Common sense, and a fair reading of the history of the Second Amendment, leads to the obvious conclusion that its guarantee of the “right to keep and bear arms” was never intended to be limited to intra-home firearms. Unfortunately, the uncertainty created by the pinched opinion in Heller — which may have been necessary to secure the fifth vote (Justice Anthony Kennedy) — is now causing serious damage to firearms rights, as is manifest in Judge Myerscough’s recent ruling. SAF and Illinois Carry are taking their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But the lower court’s ruling does drive home a couple of important points. First, the U.S. Senate needs to stop sitting on its hands, and pass the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which received overwhelming support in the House last November (passing 272 to 154). This legislation would treat concealed carry licenses much like driver’s licenses, through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and require states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states. Perhaps even more important, however, this ruling by a lifetime-tenured federal judge reminds us of the importance of presidential appointments to the federal bench — and the severe damage to our Second Amendment rights that can be expected from a second term for President Barack Obama. Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He provides regular commentary to Daily Caller readers.

FEMA Puts Out Contract For Emergency Camps to House “Displaced Citizens” Paul Joseph Watson Monday, February 27, 2012 Solicitation calls for camps to be ready for occupancy within 72 hours The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is looking for contractors to construct temporary emergency camps inside the United States which can be ready for occupancy within a 72 hour time period and used to house emergency responders as well as “displaced citizens”. The National Responder Support Camp contract, posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, calls on contractors to “provide all necessary supervision, professional staff, labor support, material, supplies and equipment as necessary to make a RSC within a disaster-impacted area anywhere within the CONUS (Continental United States) within 72 hours after notification.” The camps are primarily designed to house emergency responders, but will also be utilized to shelter “displaced citizens,” who will be “given the first opportunities for employment within the camp,” according to the solicitation. The camps will be able to service up to 2,000 people at one time. As well as natural disasters, the 72-hour camps are designed to deal with terrorist attacks, National Response Framework activities of federal agencies, National Special Security Events, “or any other situation where FEMA or an agency working through FEMA needs a RSC.” The camps will be secured with fencing and barricades that will also serve to create areas that are “off limits” to certain occupants. Entry to the camp will be controlled through a photo ID system for all occupants and visitors. Medical treatment facilities, dining facilities, mobile showers and “morale welfare and recreation” facilities are all required as part of the contract. FEMA’s latest efforts to satisfy the demand for emergency camps represents a continuation of preparations on behalf of the federal government to prepare for civil emergencies and potential social disorder.

Last December, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people. In 2006, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned. Last year we received a leaked memo from a state government employee detailing KBR’s efforts to hire subcontractors to provide services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States, indicating that many of the camps have now been constructed and are ready for use. The construction of new detention camps inside the United States has provoked fears that the facilities could also be used to intern American citizens in the aftermath of a national emergency. Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services. During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.” A provision within the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Obama on New Years Eve, hands the government power to have American citizens arrested and detained without trial. ALL MOVIES BELOW ARE A MUST WATCH Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura FEMA CAMPS THIS EPISODE BANNED FROM TV BY U.S. GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT’S THE TRUTH

Camp FEMA: American Lockdown

Camp FEMA 2 Enemy of the State

Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA

EndGame Blue Print to Global Enslavement

Utah Lawmakers Urge Congress toRepeal ‘Indefinite Detention’ Law  

Latest state to revolt against kidnapping provisions of NDAA Utah has become the latest state to revolt against the indefinite detention pro...

Utah Lawmakers Urge Congress toRepeal ‘Indefinite Detention’ Law  

Latest state to revolt against kidnapping provisions of NDAA Utah has become the latest state to revolt against the indefinite detention pro...