Pending Legislation

Below is a Resolution regarding NDAA and its constitutionality.  There  are two bills in process to correct/clarify the language regarding American citizen detention and NDAA.  This work was done by Andrew Nappi of the 10th Amendment Center.

Here is a County Petition for Florida with the Florida Constitution violations included. This uses the Tenth Amendment Center Liberty Preservation Resolution as found at

http://florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/ndaa-liberty-preservation-act/

by KrisAnne Hall - www.krisannehall.com

December 12, 2011

I have voiced my firm opposition to SB1867 because of its potential use against US citizens, I have been called an extremist, a chicken little, etc. Now RT, a Russian news media source, has posted an article that made my hair stand on end. In June of this year, a predator drone was used by local law enforcement to facilitate the arrest of a North Dakota Family.

RT reports: “This is the first time in American history that an unmanned aircraft has been used to assist police in making an arrest on US soil.” As if to assure the reader that this isn’t a misprint, the report continues with “By “drone” we do mean military reconnaissance and assault flying machine used by the US Army (sic) and the CIA, mostly abroad…To be precise, this is the same Predator drone that the US Army (sic) uses in military missions across Afghanistan, Pakistan and any other theater…” 

Local law enforcement using a military drone - is this some military sci-fi novel we’re reading?  Nope. Apparently DHS has been using these drones in the states for YEARS, yet this story is noticeably absent from American media sources.  Thanks to RT, we now know the truth.  Here’s how it went:

The local Sheriff, Kelly Janke, ran into some trouble while looking for some wandering cows, six cows to be exact.  Fortunately for the local sheriff, the Predator drone was returning to Grand Forks Air Base from a mission on the US/Canada border and had some fuel left, so what the hey, let’s send it to North Dakota to look for some cows.  Really? 

According to local reports, these cows were not alleged to be stolen, they had wandered onto the Brossart farm.  According to certain local reports, Mr. Brossart believed these animals to be unclaimed and, in accordance with certain open range laws, the cattle belonged to him. When questioned in court, he answered repeatedly, that the cattle were “his property.”  Because of this property dispute, legally speaking, this is now a civil matter.  Yet, the Sheriff’s office served a criminal warrant to look for these cows. 

When Mr. Brossart refused to honor the warrant, he was tazed and placed into custody.  Mr. Brossart was not armed.  Mr. Brossart’s sons also refused to honor the warrant, and told law enforcement officers to get off the property.  Initial reports say the boys had long guns, and later reports claim high powered rifles.  This all resulted in a standoff where no shots were fired and no one was harmed. 

Now, as a former prosecutor, who has a deep respect and appreciation for law enforcement and the dangers they face, I understand the problem with people brandishing guns in the presence of officers.  But it appears to me that the situation was incited by criminalizing a civil dispute.  This was reasonably a civil dispute over livestock ownership which would require a review by a judge and full hearing involving all parties before property is taken.  But here is the really disturbing part.  The next morning, a tip to law enforcement told officers that the boys were out on tractors harvesting and were not armed.  Did the officers now come to the property and attempt to serve this warrant peaceably?   No, they responded with MASSIVE force.

“Next thing they knew – a mini army and a Predator B drone have been called in.  State Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulance, deputy sheriffs from three other counties and a drone arrived at the scene, reports the Los Angeles Times.”

I have been involved with law enforcement as a prosecutor for nearly nine years.  NEVER did I see such a display of force over a civil dispute involving “stray cows”.  And what did this assault team find?  Exactly what they were told, boys harvesting and no weapons and…

“A search of the property turned up four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows and a samurai sword, according to court records. Police also found the six missing cows, valued at $6,000.”

There you have it, a small Army called out to subdue cattle rustlers who have four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows, and a samurai sword on their 3,000-acre farm. Huh?  All this over cows?

And now “the rest of the story.” Apparently, the residents of this farm are members of the Sovereign Citizens Movement, a so-called “anti-government group which the FBI considers extremist and violent,” according to the LA Times article.  The primary reason for this is that Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen.  However, don’t forget who else DHS considers potential terrorists.  Remember the report that claims veterans returning from Iraq and those who are against abortion are also “potentially violent terrorist?”  Here is an excerpt:

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely…It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.”

Take some time and read what the ADL says about the Sovereign Citizens.  If you refer to yourself as a Constitutionalist, you might be a terrorist.  If you believe that government governs best when it governs closest to home, you might be a terrorist.  If you take issue with the 16^th or 17^th amendments, the Federal Reserve, Fiat money, or you believe in the Gold Standard, you might be a terrorist.

Just a week ago the crafters of the SB1867 said they could not conceive of the extraordinary powers given to DHS being used against US citizens; it only applies to “terrorists.” Now we have military drones being employed in the US in police actions against citizens.  Really? How inconceivable is it for US citizens to be subjected to the extraordinary powers outlined in SB1867?  I believe the purpose of SB1867 is to manipulate the people into giving permission for this abuse of power in the name of security; in the name of fighting terrorism.  Are we to believe that they didn’t have this in mind when they wrote that bill?

I am reminded of a similar ploy advanced by King George III against our founders.  In his defense of the British Colonies, in the name of National Security, George deployed British troops in the colonies to enforce his laws. In order to properly facilitate this military action, George and parliament passed the Quartering Act.

Whereas there may be occasion for marching and quartering of regiments and companies of his Majesty's forces in several parts of his Majesty's dominions in America: and whereas the publick houses and barracks, in his Majesty's dominions in America, may not be sufficient to supply quarters for such forces…

Understand that George already had the troops in route.  He already KNEW there would not be sufficient barracks to house them.  There was no question in George’s mind what his intentions were, what resources were needed, and how he was to obtain them.  But he could get the people and parliament to agree to this violation of our founders’ rights by softening the language and dealing with a “potential” danger.  This is the same disingenuous tactic our Congress has used to perpetrate the gutting of our Bill of Rights and the destruction of our Constitution in SB1867.   So, this is only for terrorists?  Again, I ask you, WHO IS THE TERRORIST?

So what do we get?  Not what Congress said we would get.  Not the near impossibility of using this type of military force against US Citizens, but the first use of military predator drones on US Soil based upon a civil dispute over the ownership of cows.  NOT against one of the many known al-Queda terrorist camps located here in the United States.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84, quoting Justice Blackstone, gave us this very sober warning:

“To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution”.

This is EXACTLY what SB1867 does. Why are we so deaf to the cries of our founding fathers?  Why are we like the spoiled teenager who believes he is immortal and our fathers are simple old fools who have no idea the problems we face today?  They had a deep wisdom, based upon centuries of human nature and experience.  We must recognize that human nature does not change; there is nothing new under the sun.

George Washington is quoted to have said: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

This parallels  Patrick Henry’s warning: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

Now do you see why Americans are so concerned over SB1867?  The 93 Senators that voted in favor of this atrocity are participating in the destruction of our Constitution and it apparently doesn’t bother them any more than it bothers the rest of America. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Submitted to post by Martha Hanneman Dec. 7, 2011)
Later today, the House of Representatives will seize the opportunity to bring some common sense to the outdated regulatory system in America. It will pass the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) and send the Senate yet another bipartisan bill that we should pass and send to President Obama, who should sign it. A veto, which the president has threatened, would send another job-stifling chill through the American economy.

The REINS Act, introduced by Rep. Geoff Davis and Sen. Rand Paul, would require that Congress approve every new “major” rule proposed by the executive branch before it is enforced. A “major rule” is any rule that is determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

Burdensome regulations are hurting job creation in America. As any job creator will testify, job creation happens when the economic environment offers certainty and incentives to start a businessor expand an existing one. Unfortunately, regulations coming out of Washington are costly, time-consuming, and burdensome — and oftentimes there is no compelling justification for their existence. These rules force job creators to devote precious resources to hire new accountants and lawyers to comply with the new mandates, instead of focusing on hiring a new engineer or investing in equipment. In fact, a recent Gallup poll put “complying with government regulations” at the top of concerns faced by small-business owners.

This year alone, 772 regulatory documents have been deemed “significant” under the president’s definition, heaping an estimated $230 billion in new compliance costs on the struggling economy. A staggering 76,292 pages of regulations have been added to the Federal Register, and the expected paperwork burden for businesses stands at 119.4 million hours per year. Regulations based on sound science that keep the American people safe are an important function of the federal government, but it is quite clear that our runaway regulatory system must be reined in to help foster private-sector job creation. An estimate from the American Action Forum finds that passage of the REINS Act could yield regulatory cost savings of over $40 billion and save 55,000 jobs.

The most obvious example of regulatory overreach is thehealth-care-spending law, which I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will strike down as unconstitutional. The uncertainty caused by Obamacare’s maze of government mandates and tax hikes is hurting job creation, and it must be repealed in full and replaced with patient-centered solutions that lower health-care costs without hurting the economy.

Washington’s regulatory blizzard is also having a disproportionate effect on Florida’s dynamic economy. In particular, I am actively working to halt an Internal Revenue Service mandate on U.S. banks that would cause tens of billions of dollars to flee the economy, to have the EPA withdraw its job-killing numeric-nutrient regulation on Florida businesses, to provide relief for fast-growing companies from onerous regulations in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality rules, which would stifle job-creating investment in the Internet industry.

Every member of Congress hears from their constituents about the mountain of government rules like these that are increasing the costs of starting a business or expanding an existing one. Given this reality, it’s no wonder the House of Representatives is set to pass the REINS Act, and it’s why the REINS Act was one of the first bills I co-sponsored upon joining the Senate.

It’s time for Senate Democrats to stop standing in the way of another commonsense bill passed by the House of Representatives that will bring greater accountability and transparency to an archaic regulatory system that is actively impeding desperately needed private-sector job creation.

— Marco Rubio is a U.S. senator from Florida.

Article Recap & Talking Points:This year alone, 772 regulatory documents have been deemed "significant" (annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more) under the President's definition, heaping an estimated $230 billion in new compliance costs to the struggling economy.76,292 Pages of regulations have been added to the Federal Register.The expected paperwork burden for businesses stands at 119.4 million hours per year.Passage of the REINS Act could yield regulatory cost savings of over $40 billion and save 55,000 jobs.

Action Items:

• Please contact your Member of Congress and let them know that you support Marco Rubio & the REINS Act. You may find your member of Congress here:http://www.house.gov(enter your zip code at the top right of that page)

• It's important that this information is read by as many Americans as possible. The People must demand a stop to the burdensome regulations coming out of Washington. Please help us spread the word and help Marco Rubio by sharing this email with your friends. Please forward this email to at least 10 friends right now. Thanks!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Battlefield” USA: Senate bill turns military on U.S. citizens

by Joel McDurmon on Nov 29, 2011 - American Vision News

“I wouldn’t call it an alternative system,” said an administration official who has helped devise the legal response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “But it is different than the criminal procedure system we all know and love. It’s a separate track for people we catch in the war.”

_________________________________________________________

Updated Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Boeing to fight NLRB complaint on 787 South Carolina plant (Note:  Boeing is the Country's Biggest Exporter)

By Eric Pryne

Seattle Times business reporter

Boeing was retaliating illegally against its largest union when it decided in 2009 to put a second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in a nonunion plant in South Carolina, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charged in a complaint filed Wednesday.

To remedy the alleged violation, the complaint says, Boeing should be ordered to operate the second line at a union plant in Washington.

Boeing said it would "vigorously contest" the case and proceed with plans to start assembling planes in Charleston, S.C., in July.  "This doesn't change anything," spokesman Tim Neale said.

The South Carolina plant could be operating for years before the dispute is decided, a labor-law expert said.

"This process can take a long, long time to play out," said Ross Runkel, a professor emeritus of law at Willamette University and labor-law specialist.

The first step in that process - a hearing in Seattle before an administrative-law judge - is scheduled June 14th.

NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon filed the complaint after a year long investigation of an unfair labor practices charge brought in March 2010 by Seattle-based International Association of Machinists (IAM) District 751, the largest union at Boeing.

The IAM said Boeing was retaliating for a 2008 strike, and seeking to discourage potential future strikes when it chose to locate the second line in Charleston rather than in Puget Sound area.

Solomon agreed, citing numerous public statements by Boeing executives that South Carolina was chosen in large part to avoid production disruptions from potential strikes.

Boeing's actions were "inherently destructive of the rights guaranteed employees" by federal labor law, the NLRB said.

Boeing plans to assemble seven planes a month at its unionized plant in Everett and three planes a month at its nonunion plant in Charleston.

To win the Boeing plant, South Carolina offered the company $170 million in upfront grants for startup costs, plus tax breaks that would be worth tens of millions of dollars more.

The Machinists union has struck Boeing's Puget Sound-area factories four times since 1989, most recently in 2008.  Before Boeing announced where it would build the second 787 line, the company and the union held secret talks over a potential 10-year no-strike agreement.

The union hailed the NLRB's complaint as "a victory for all American workers."

The Charleston plant was an initiative by Boeing "to intimidate our members with the idea that the company would take away their work unless they made concessions at the bargaining table."  District 751 President Tom Wroblewski said in a prepared statement.

Boeing continues to engage in the kind of activity the NLRB condemns, said union spokeswoman Connie Kelliher.  She noted the recent move to have some Dreamliner parts for the South Carolina line made at a nonunion plant in North Carolina - rather than at unionized plants here - to keep the line running in case of strikes.

Michael Luttig, Boeing's executive vice president and general counsel, said in a prepared statement that the NLRB's complaint is "legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both the NLRB and Supreme Court precedent."

Two 1965 U.S. Supreme Court cases affirm employers' right to consider potential strikes in making business decisions, Boeing spokesman Neale said:  "We're very optimistic that the law is on our side."

But the NLRB said the law and previous board decisions clearly bar employers from threatening workers with job losses for union-related activities.

NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said the agency has held numerous settlement discussions with Boeing and the IAM since the union filed its complaint.  She said she knows of no talks under way now.

If there's no agreement, the administrative-law judge's ruling on the complaint can be appealed to the full five-member NLRB.

The board always has been highly political, said Runkel, the law professor, and its handling of cases that involve companies moving work from union to nonunion sites has varied radically, depending on which party is in the majority.

Any board decision, in turn, can be appealed to federal courts.

Three of the five NLRB board seats now are held by Democrats.  "I expect them to take a hard line on this," Runkel said.

Solomon, the general counsel filing the complaint, is an Obama administration appointee who operates independently of the board.

It's rare for the NLRB to seek to force an employer to move work back to a unionized plant from a nonunion one when it determines labor law has been violated, Runkel said.

He couldn't recollect a recent example and said he knows of no Supreme Court decision directly addressing that scenario.

The NLRB's case would be stronger, he added, if Boeing had reduced employment in Washington when it decided to open the plant in South Carolina.

Boeing said that, while it has hired more than 1,000 new workers in South Carolina, IAM employment in the Puget Sound area actually has increased by 2,000 since October 2009, when the Charleston plant was announced.

But Kelliher, the union spokeswoman, said most of those local jobs aren't related to the Dreamliner.

While the South Carolina plant gets up to speed, Boeing is setting up a second, temporary 787 assembly bay in Everett, what it calls a "surge" line to help ramp up production of the long-delayed plane.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said the NLRB complaint, if successful, would give unions a virtual veto over business decisions.

"Left to their own devices, the NLRB would routinely punish right-to-work states that value and promote their pro-business climates."

Joe Trauger, a vice president with the National Association of Manufacturers, also slammed the complaint. If it is upheld, he wrote in a blog post, "no company will be safe from the NLRB stepping to to second-guess its business decisions on where to expand or whom to hire."

The Boeing case is the latest example of a labor board that has been more active in defending the rights of unions since gaining a Democratic majority last year, the first time in nearly a decade.  In recent months, the board has cracked down on companies that fire employees during union organizing drives.  It also made waves in January when it threatened to sue South Carolina and three other states over constitutional amendments that guarantee the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

Information from The Associated Press and Seattle Times archives is included in this report.

A growing footprint:

Boeing's South Carolina 787 plant

Chronology:  In July 2009, Boeing agreed to buy the 787 rear-fuselage assembly plant in Charleston, S.C. from troubled supplier Vought for about $1 billion.  In October, after secret talks with the Machinists union didn't produce a 10-year no-strike agreement, Boeing selected Charleston for its second 787 plant, a planned 750,000-square-foot complex.  In December 2009 it bought out supplier Alenia's half interest in the adjacent Global Aeronautical mid-fuselage assembly plant, giving it full control of the Charleston complex.

Boeing also plans a South Carolina facility to provide aircraft interiors for its Charleston-build 787's and says it intends to duplicate on the East Coast all its Puget Sound-area production capabilities related to the 787.

Investment expected by S. Carolina:  $750 million.

Jobs expected by S.C.:  Up to 3,800

Planned output:  3 planes per month

Start of operations:  July.

Expected flight of first S.C. - built plane:  In about a year.

Source:  Seattle Times archives, The Associated Press

Boeing executives on Charleston decision:

Some comments referred to the NLRB complaint.  "Diversifying our labor pool and labor relationships has some benefits...Some of the modest inefficiencies associated with a move to Charleston are certainly more than overcome by strikes happening every three or four years in Puget Sound and the very negative financial impact on the company."

Boeing chairman and CEO Jim McNerney, in Oct. 21, 2009, conference call.

"My preference is to do the work here in the future.  But we'll do work here if we can make sure that we have the stability of the production lines and we can be competitive over the long haul. ... I'm very hopeful as we continue to have discussions with the union that we'll be able to come up with ways of being competitive here and we can come with ways of ensuring that we're not going to have labor strikes... None of us are going to have jobs if we continue to have strikes that on for three or four months every three years."

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh, in videotaped Seattle Times Interview, March 1, 2010.