Someone probably associated with the local fringe focus group known as the Bay Area Chamber of Commerce is trying to define and thereby restrict the scope of “county business” conducted by the board of commissioners. To this end the local newspaper was tasked with and dutifully produced an editorial meant to discourage the public from expecting elected officials to represent or address local concerns over federal policy, namely opposition to the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). According to The World editors and at least two thirds of the Coos County Commission this is not a county issue even though the paper concedes the NDAA and other expansions of federal authority “should trouble everyone”.
Who decides what is and isn’t the business of the county commission? Is it commission business to write a letter in support of the Port of Coos Bay obtaining another federal TIGER grant for the Coos Bay Rail Link? Is it appropriate for the commission to adopt a resolution opposing the expansion of federal lands along the Bandon Marsh? Should the commission be lobbying Congress to turn over management of federal timber lands to the Coquille Tribe? Does a county commission have any business asking Congress to increase logging on federally owned Oregon & California Railroad lands?
This board and preceding boards has made all these and many more federal matters county business yet now balks at declaring a position on the NDAA. The paper writes the board has “no legitimate role in national security policy” even after explaining that under the act American citizens, including those living in Coos County, can be indefinitely detained without charge or trial or even evidence. Adopting a resolution may be a symbolic act, much like the resolution opposing expansion of the Bandon Marsh, but when federal policy effects local law enforcement how will this commission explain its refusal to represent the will of the people?
The answer to why the board, or at least John Sweet and Melissa Cribbins, are digging in their heels may lie within the last paragraphs of the editorial. They simply don’t like the people raising the issue.
The commissioners also need to be careful about lending their official credibility to organizations with dubious pedigrees. One of the two groups pressing for county action, the Oath Keepers, is a thinly repackaged revival of ultra-right radicalism. It springs from the same network of discontent that gave us the Posse Comitatus, the survivalists and the militia movement. The other group, People Against NDAA (PANDA for short), is an unlikely combination of political bedfellows, stretching from the Occupy movement to the tea party and beyond.
There you have it, the paper plainly concedes there is broad support for making this matter county business. Right wing extremists along with Occupy, the tea party and “beyond” or, in other words, EVERYONE ELSE want the board to lend its official credibility for purposes of encouraging state and federal legislators to uphold our civil liberties. Think of it as the civil rights movement of fifty years ago. But, perhaps because EVERYONE doesn’t include the hundred or so people setting policy in Coos County the board doesn’t want to be seen as aligned with the other 63,000 residents. You know, the fringe majority.
Speaking of groups with dubious pedigrees, are Cribbins and Sweet waiting for the local chamber of commerce to give them the okay before considering whether civil rights and due process constitute county business? Who decides what is county business? Shouldn’t the people decide?
Bob Main
(541) 396-7540
John Sweet
(541) 396-7541
Melissa Cribbins
(541) 396-7539
I have nothing to add to what has been so eloquently expressed except to agree with those in opposition to the NDAA, on every level.
It seems as governmental corruption attempts expansion, “We the People” expand to meet them head on.
Its “OUR COUNTRY” – “We” have fought the wars, lost the loved ones, served and trusted. It may seem that there are few voices, but multitudes are aware and quietly observing.
That’s not how law works:
The Federalist No. 78
http://constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
The Federalist No. 83
http://constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm
What the Senator is essentially saying is that he believes the general government has the authority to make into law whatever it wants, so long as you aren’t successful at repelling their violent enforcements of pretended legislations.
What I’m going to say next seems like it would be completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but it’s extremely relevant.
The only way to stop them is to stop using fiat money, because that is what’s enabling their ability to ignore you:
War and the Fed | Lew Rockwell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9lS5k7H5M
One thing that bothers me in this article is that “the militia movement” is used as if it is a bad thing. Let me educate you on that also starting with the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof being the supreme law of this land.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“The power and duty of Congress is to “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” shows that Congress’s authority is TO arm “the people” who constitute the Militia, directly or indirectly – which is all able-bodied Americans. The power and duty assigned to congress is NOT to disarm them or to prevent them from arming themselves with or without the assistance of the States in which they reside. Congress’ constitutionally assigned power and duty “to provide for arming the Militia” CANNOT include a self-contradictory license “to provide for disarming the Militia”.
The constitutionally assigned power and duty of Congress “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS” (caps are mine) points up that these “Arms” MUST include all “Arms” suitable to “repel Invasions” – that is, specifically military-grade “Arms” at least equivalent to those any “Invaders” of the USA would be likely to employ, and thus at least equivalent to those Congress provides to the regular Armed Forces of the United States for the purpose of fighting foreign foes.
No other powers of Congress – such as the powers “to lay and collect Taxes” and “to regulate Commerce”, the two legalistic props usually invoked for “gun control” – can interfere with, let alone negate, the power “to provide for arming the Militia”, because:
(i) All constitutional powers are “of equal dignity” in all respects, such that none may ever be “enforced as to nullify or substantially impair [any] other”;
(ii)The Militia are State government institutions – as the Constitution describes them, “the Militia of the several States” – not any form of Commerce”; and
(iii)The General Government cannot impose a tax on any State, any State governmental institution, or the production, acquisition, possession, or use of any equipment necessary for the proper functioning thereof.
Do you know what a ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal’ is? In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 it authorizes congress to grant ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal’. That clause permits congress to authorize PRIVATELY OWNED ARMED SHIPS to make war on our enemies.
Some history – War of 1812, when the British attacked us; the US congress authorized ‘‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal’ authorizing privately owned armed ships, privateers, to attack British ships. These privateer ships were as heavily armed as those ships of the US navy.
The US Constitution grants authority to congress to require all able-bodied citizens to get armed in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…”.
Pursuant to that clause in 1792 congress passed the Militia Act of 1792. This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (at that time only males served), except of course for federal officers and employees, between the ages of 14 and under 45 to: buy a rifle, ammunition, and report for training in their local militia. As section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 shows, the militia are the civilian citizens.
Madison, considered the Father of the US Constitution, said in the second half of federalist 46:
“The purpose of armed citizens is to fight the federal government if the need arises”.
In the Calfiornia Constitution, set up by the people of the state of California: Preamble;
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE, SECTION 1. The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed.
SEC. 7. The Governor is commander in chief OF A MILITIA THAT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.
(caps are mine. Who are the militia? EVERY able-bodied person over 18 years of age…)
ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
“I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence
or other unlawful means except as follows: ______________________________
(If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of ____________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.
“Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
If you are not aware of it, the California Constitution defines the California government and assigns the duties of the three branches. It is the highest law, second only to the US Constitution. ALL California positions requiring the oath also lawfully requires those self-same oath takers to KEEP the oath to meet the lawful requirements of the position they are occupying.
So you see that militias are lawfully REQUIRED by the US Constitution (in congressional duties assigned and in the Bill of Rights) and that the California Constitution which recognizes the US Constitution as supreme law, and lawfully requires the support and defense of the US Constitution.
Militia is not a bad work. It is EVERY able-bodied person over the age of 18 years – that would most likely mean that you, John Sweet and Melissa Cribbins, are part of the milita of the state of California as required by law. The only people not militia is those serving within the federal or state governments. They are already lawfully required to support and DEFEND the US Constitution by the position they are occupying.
Obviously John Sweet and Melissa Cribbins do not even understand America’s form of government – too much progressive education maybe?
Short “government lesson for dummies”: ”
We the People” made some states. They had to deal (trade) with foreign nations and with the other states (united). They also wanted the states to trade fairly with each other (that was a problem back then).
So they created the US Constitution, making sure that each state and each subsequent new state retained their republican form of government (self government dealing with (mostly) state and local issues), and a federal government to deal with mostly foreign affairs, but also to make sure that the states traded FAIRLY with each other.
America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democratic nation. The US Constitution defines and lists the federal government’s duties and the powers to carry out those specifically defined duties. The US Constitution limits the Fed government, and anything the fed government does that is NOT specifically listed as a duty and the power to carry out that duty in the US Constitution is a “usurpation(s)” and not lawful.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes clear the LIMITS the US Constitution put on the federal government here:
“… THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT misconstruction or ABUSE of its powers, that FURTHER declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”. (caps are mine)
The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, or the word “granted” would appear each and every time a “right” was being established. Read the he Bill of Rights and see that the word “granted” does not appear in ANY Amendment. The Bill of Rights placed MORE restraints (LIMITS) on the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States (10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the words “granted”, “grant”, “grants”.
Furthermore the Bill of Rights are unalienable: “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, NO HUMAN LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO ABRIDGE OR DESTROY them…” (caps are mine)
Some say “inalienable”: “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred”.
About Oathkeepers, PANDA – you are incorrect about them.
You are probably ignorant enough to NOT know that breaking the lawfully required Oaths of Office is a crime: actually it is criminal, civil and political crimes all in one. “Impeachment” is the political answer to a political crime, “prosecution” is the answer to criminal and civil offenses.
So when an organization keeps, and teaches about the lawfully *required (*also a legal term) Oaths, it is not only serious, it is LAWFUL. The Oaths are further clarification of the contrcts made for those who wish to occupy the positions/offices that lawfully require oaths. That would be: the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees as they are all lawfully required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity (Presidents are held to a higher standard: to Preserve, Protect and Defend the US Constitution). Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.
I also suspect that you are unaware that the US Constitution and all that is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF IT (follows it)is the supreme LAW of THIS land; NOT the federal government.
What that means: if it is an assigned duty by the US Constitution, and it is NOT breaking or trying to modify any of the LIMITATIONS placed upon the federal government and the few placed on the states; then, and only then, it is lawful here in the USA. Notice the word “law”. That means that those (usually temporarily) serving within the federal government goes against it in any way, THEY are breaking the highest law. That applies to the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches of the federal government, plus the governments of the states where the US Constitution applies (states actually have more powers then the US Constitution under our legitimate ‘duality’ of government. That is so that it is easier for the people to make sure that their representatives actually represent the peoples interest).
Madison, Federalist 51: “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself”.
Thomas Jefferson: “that a federal “law” that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is “void and of no effect.”
Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will… be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” Madison, Federalist 39
Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…”
“Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton
The Oaths are lawfully required by the supreme law of this land. Keeping them is a requirement that must be met to lawfully remain in the position being occupied that requires the oath.
Hopefully you have learned enough from this to understand that not only is Oathkeepers and PANDA (and other groups watching and dissenting with either the federal government or the state governments) legitimate and lawful – they are needed because our form of government REQUIRES that the PEOPLE do their duty and keep a watchful eye on those “serving” in any capacity within our governments: elected or otherwise (federal or state employee).
Support starts at the local level.to ignore this is like saying this can never happen to us? I’m sure The people who lived out in the rural areas of the USA back in 1929 said the very same thing.
The local officials choose not to do or say anything.
The local Sheriff is the Absolute authority over his jurisdiction. It is his or her responsibility to enforce the LOCAL ordinances that nullify the NDAA act within each state or county. If the county leaders do not at in accordance with the wishes of the people they need to be replaced with those who will. They serve at the request of the voting public, not the other way around.
But these people are fricking cowards! they do not want to ruffle the feathers of the Feds or Homeland Security. They want to insure they’re place in the NEW Society.
To the Residents of this community, you need to expose any and all dirt about these people. Follow them and watch every single thing they do and says 24/7. Don;t stop until you find a weakness and then exploit it. Protesting is not going to get you anywhere today. This is now a “Covert” operation and it’s the only way you’re going to change your leadership.
When I joined the Navy I took an oath to protect the Constitution, John Sweet and Millisa Cribbins were never in the military, why is that? Our country (before o started making wars by executive order without Congressional approval) stands on the Constitution. We back the Constitution with our lives. The Tea Party is the largest group of Americans ever assembled and it stands for the Constitution and John and Millisa call us rebels? Who are rebels here?
Recall these two, don’t even allow them to finish their term. They would lock the majority of this country to advance their NDAA agenda. o has bypassed the Constitution by not allowing the our military overseas to vote while opening up our borders and denouncing photo IDs be shown before voting. He pushed through and passed the Patriot Act which is ill named and the NDAA which is anything but protecting our nation. I want paper-trail voting, I want a receipt for my vote. The Agenda 21 Bill and NDAA, are not the Law of the Land.
Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest was granted a preliminary injunction, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights.
Judge Forrest concluded that the Section “…failed to ‘pass Constitutional muster’ because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.”
John Sweet and Millisa Cribbins also fail to ‘pass Constitutional muster’, get rid of them now.
This is very much county business. This issue affects every person in the county.
Any federal acts, including “laws”, that violate the U.S. Constitution are unconstitutional (illegal). Don’t be deceived by politicians and pundits, or by anyone who is misinformed or purposely deceiving. When they say that all federal laws are supreme, they are lying.
If you read the so-called “Supremacy Clause”, Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, you’ll see the truth. It’s clearly written in simple English. My 5th grader understands it.
The first part of this clause reads,
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…” IN PURSUANCE THEREOF.
That means that laws which do not violate the compact (which are made in pursuance of it) are supreme over state laws.
It also means that laws that violate the compact are NOT supreme.
This is the obvious truth of this “supremacy clause” and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of this fact or they are deliberately deceiving.
The people of the states, and counties, have the right AND the duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Government officials in the county have taken an oath to the constitution. It’s their duty to honor their oaths.
James Madison said, “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
And, Thomas Jefferson said that the states “are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.” And that the “government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself.”
Jefferson also said that when the government violates the constitution, nullification is the “rightful remedy”.
It’s time for our representatives to take a stand against tyranny, and nullify indefinite detention, which is a violation of our constitutionally protected civil rights and is illegal.
Senator Wayne Morse said the government was supposed to administer the peoples policies and even if we disagree with Patriot Act, the AUMF and the NDAA, if we submit to them by default they become the people’s policy.
The whole point is about responsibility, to be a part of upholding our Constitution.We all have that responsibility.BUT most of all those ” folks who have actually taken an OATH to uphold” it.If they are not willing to abide by their oath then dismiss themselves from that position.Be it a commissioner,police officer or any public office.
If our country is going to once again become a country run by the citizens,not our politicians,we all should be willing to take the “oath to uphold our constitution”.Our Constitution does supersede the authority of any and all politicians.
I CAN SAY WHAT IT IS THAT THE WHOLE THING REAL IS ABOUT WITHOUT COMEING DOWN HARD ON SOME FOLK BACK BUT LET ME SAY THIS TAKE YOU SPY JAMES BOND CRAP AND LEAVE THE COUNTY HIDE AND DO IT NOW THIS IS OUR WORLD NOT THE THE NWO PICKER WOODS SO LEAVE NOW AND HIDE MAY ME FIND YOU AND ARREST YOU
The Oathkeepers is one of many shining lights of freedom. Wise up, and stand for freedom before you have none at all.
All politics are local. Just because it happens in DC doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect us in our homes and daily lives. It has been this kind of lazy thinking that has put our country in the mess it is in.
Thankfully many Americans have understood the truth about the strength and responsibility of the individual from the Revolution to today’s military volunteers and those members of groups such as Oathkeepers. The two fools that think overreaching big government is not a local concern are either complicit with big government or too ignorant to see the truth, probably a combination of the two.
When enough local governments stand up against this abuse of power and violation of our civil rights liberty can be restored.
As someone who has taken the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution a number of times (twice in the military, once as a law enforcement officer), I should take great exception to being classified as a right wing extremist solely because of my Oath Keepers membership. To do so, however, would be to abandon my belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because the classification “extremist” has been tossed about with little thought by the same individuals who accuse all opponents of the current administration as being racists. I do, however, wish to remind everyone of Barry Goldwater’s famous statement: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” In my mind, anyone who adheres to the late Senator’s philosophy is simply a true American who believes in liberty and justice for all.
Any elected individual having taken the same oath I gladly took without regret who does not stand by that pledge is, by such failure, a de facto enemy of this country. As such, that individual can readily be characterized under the NDAA and would be subject to arrest and indefinite imprisonment at the whim of any non-elected federal official with the responsibility to do so as granted by the unconstitutional NDAA.
Perhaps the two opposing county commissioners should give serious thought to the possibility they qualify for immediate detainment.
Yes! The general position of the complacent, like these two commissioners seem to be, is to hold false confidence that it will never happen to them…
No government, federal, state or local, has the right to stop any group of people from gathering, presenting their views, peacefully protesting, carrying guns, distributing literature, or doing anything else that is a protected RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. These documents supersede the desires of individual administrations or officials, including the Supreme Court, the President and the Congress.
Oath Keepers is NOT a “militia group.” They have never gathered for any kind of para-military training. They don’t allow anyone to use their forums or meetings to recruit for milita groups. If you go to their website, they state this plainly on their home page. Instead this group is made up of active and retired military, sheriff’s, local, state, and federal employees, and others who at some time in their lives took an oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Please keep this in mind when you regurgitate what the media claims.
The NDAA is un-constitutional. The NDAA does not require even an allegation that a detained person has caused any harm or made any threat of harm to the United States or to any U.S. interest. Mere allegation of membership in, or support of, an alleged terrorist group could be the basis for indefinite detention. Under the American justice system, we don’t just lock people up indefinitely based on suspicion.
It is the duty of every American to stand against such unconstitutional encroachments upon
Liberty. If we do not, soon we will find that we have none. We must start the fight here.
1. SPLC is a hate group. They hate any form of real dissent from the status-quo as somehow “dangerous.” Oath Keepers is clearly NOT a “militia group.” They have never gathered for any kind of para-military training. They don’t even allow anyone to use their forums or meetings to recruit for milita groups; they most certainly are NOT one.
2. The desires and efforts of globalists like Obama and many others to undermine the sovereignty of the United States and promote “global governance” is well documented. Oath Keepers, like this nations founders (read the posted comments here from the Federalist Papers) believed that the closer the government was to the people it governed, the better. That is why Oath Keepers opposes all efforts to bring the US under UN “authority.” AND it is the reason why Oath Keepers does NOT see a county-level statement of nullification as futile or meaningless.
3. Nullification was used by northern states to refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. They refused to return African-Americans back to slavery in the south, in direct violation of federal law. The history of nullification goes back much further than that, to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, that nullified the obviously unconstitution Alien and Sedition Act.
Nullification is a political tool that our founders clearly meant to be used to protect our rights. The fact that it was used by some states in the south should NOT be grounds to reject the use of this tool for good. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is as foolish as saying, “Hitler used airplanes, so we shouldn’t have any.”
Nonsense.
The Senate by bringing immigration forward now rather then after the midterm election opened a small window for the American citizens to take control of their government.
Senators’ vote on the immigration bill
The fastest way to stop this tyranny is to charge your Senators who vote for it with Treason. They by their vote are representing citizens of other nations. The senators are voting against the best interest of the people they are sworn to serve.
There is no law that prohibits American citizens from bringing action against their US Senators. It would take a few people in their local district to start an action against their US Senators. A few American citizens in their local district bringing action against their US Senators DOES NOT evoke government overthrow.
Any number of districts per state filing actions equals a very loud voice, one that The House US Representatives will hear.
Voter fraud, protests, media will not stop the charges against the Senators.
It is unbelievable that anyone would have to say this, but no government entity, no matter what some may believe, has the right to stop any group of people from gathering, presenting their views, peacefully protesting, carrying guns, distributing literature. or doing anything else that is a protected right/responsibility guaranteed by the Constitution and /or the Bill of (Civil) Rights. These documents supersede the desires of individual administrations or officials.
Pretty spirited debate going on here. Just a couple points I’d like to make. I think we can all agree that the NDAA is un-constitutional. And we should all be able to agree that the government derives its powers from the people. At least it is supposed to.
Coos County is a great place to start this fight because of the many reasons stated above. And this is being watched from all states. The County may not be able to directly effect federal law but the state is made up of counties that together can make a change.
And finally, Oath Keepers is not a “highly questionable group”. This group is made up of active and retired military, sheriff’s, local, state, and federal employees, and others who at some time took an oath to defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Please keep this in mind when you regurgitate what the media claims.
Do we have a clue as to what is right or wrong? It should be the job of any public official to do the business of the people they work for. This is pretty basic to me.
Misprision. The failure to perform a public duty.
Election time is always a great time to throw money behind those who are willing to do the will of the people. Is anyone willing to stand up? We do have folks in Coos County who care about freedom and just being left alone. We are not crazies as the uneducated would like to believe. We care about living in peace without fear of our Gov..
Money, money, money, money, money!
If there’s no money for the county in it, then it shouldn’t be county business. Don’t think! Just pay your taxes and fall in line. Isn’t that a commandment?
Money, money, money, money!
If there’s no money in it for the county, then it shouldn’t be county business. Don’t think! Just pay your taxes and fall in line. Isn’t that a commandment?
Further:
The Federalist No. 46
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
The Federalist No. 28
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm
NULLIFICATION
Nullification: Answering the Objections
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/objections/
State Nullification: What Is It?
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/
Article 6 of the US Constitution
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo211.html
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I
September 18, 1858
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1048
Plan on Seeing the Movie ‘Lincoln’? Keep This in Mind…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig13/rossini4.1.1.html
NDAA
Ben Swann and the Media’s NDAA Problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Kf_0mEoYU
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Nov 17, 2011
Lindsey Graham speaking, confirming that section 1031 refers to indefinite detention
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428
The Truth Behind the 2013 NDAA- Part 1: The Feinstein/Lee Amendment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGcyatZt-A
Understanding The 2013 NDAA: Part 2- Section 1029
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6LPl0u9LlE
RELATED MISCELLANEOUS
The Federalist No. 84
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
http://www.constitution.org/rf/kr_1798.htm
Mr. Tolandd, thank you for your reply. Yes, I wrote those articles and I meant it. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. You can not align nullification of the NDAA with the Civil War issues.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is absolutely wrong in their unwarranted attacks against liberty minded individuals and organizations who do not share their beliefs. Did they list the New Black Panthers too? Maybe you should research the SPLC and their affiliates.
We are far from a militia. We are an educational foundation to reach, teach and inspire others to honor their oath to the Constitution. Getting back to the NDAA, I’m including links where you can read the resolutions yourself.
As one who believes the NDAA is a law from Hell that threatens our freedoms, what exactly are you doing about stopping it? Are you a man of words or action?
During the Revolution only 3% fought. A third of the population was pro British, a third for American independence and the remainder neutral. From that 3%, ALL people in this newly founded country benefited their inherent freedoms and still do today.
You are cordially invited to attend the Town Hall meeting at 6:00 PM on July 15th at the North Bend Library. We are all Americans and need to unite more today than ever before, or lose what’s left of our liberties. It must first be stopped here and now. Thank you.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
http://theintolerableacts.org/
http://pandaunite.org/
Open statement to PANDA (People Against the NDAA) from Senator Jeff Merkley.
‘Thank you for your advocacy in fighting for our constitutional and civil liberties. A constituent contacted me sharing your efforts to make Oregonians aware of the indefinite detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).’ -U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
It’s nice to see this credit. Thank You Senator Merkley!
Dear Mr. McKrigan
Regarding my remarks about Oathkeepers:
1. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed oathkeepers as a militia group.
2. A 2/27/13 World article quotes you as an oathkeeper spokesperson saying “Obama is not a President. He is nothing but a Communist trying to usurp his power and bring us under the United Nation’s banner”.
2. In a 3/25/13 letter to the World you advocated the doctrine of “nullificaqtion” of Federal Government authority. That declaration was invoked repeatedly by local governments in the South fighting desegregation and Civil Rights. The Confederacy also invoked nullification as a justification for secession.
I do believe that the NDAA is a law from Hell that threatens freedom.
CRAP!
r. black,
the only thing you, cribbins,and sweet are going to accomplish is inspiring people like me to donate lots of money to the cause of PANDA , and Oath keepers!
The NDAA does not require even an allegation that a detained person caused any harm or threat of harm to the United States or to any U.S. interest. Mere allegation of membership in, or support of, an alleged terrorist group could be the basis for indefinite detention. Under the American justice system, we don’t just lock people up indefinitely based on suspicion. EVERYONE has a duty to make a stand on this issue. The County Commissioners have taken a Oath to the Oregon and State Constitution. It’s their job to take a stand.
We have seen how disregard for the rule of law has disastrous results for America’s standing in the world. It is time for a return to the rule of law. It is time to turn that page.
Mr. Black, Please read the article I posted from Richard Fry. It will answer and refute what you believe to be true in following a so called chain of command. However, we’ve taking this to the same government body who created it in the first place, have been approached over this over and over.
Lawsuits have been filed by all political spectrum’s including the left, moderate and right because it effects every single one of us equally. Political change begins at the ground up. Why oppose something to do with preserving our Bill of Rights?
Why should we take this to other counties instead of Coos? Are you concerned that your rights might actually be protected here? Should we all move to other places for protection? Show me the county ordinance that governs the commissioners limitations? It’s not there. But, you can find it in both U.S. and State Constitutions.
If the NDAA isn’t a county issue, then please explain why they involve themselves with the various federal agencies on all other “county issues” to wit; land, water, O&C funding, dredging, fisheries, timber, etc.
As Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Tolandd,
I take offense to your unintelligent and contradictory letter. Have you even read the resolution that you disagree with? Back up your words about Oath Keepers being a questionable right wing group. If you are ever charged under the NDAA, you wont be saying then that it’s not county business!
The anti NDAA resolutions were developed by The Patriot Coalition, The Intolerable Acts Action Center, Oath Keepers and Constitutional Scholars. They have been tailored to each county. Many cities, counties and states have passed resolutions, so what makes Coos County any different?
They have the legal duty under sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The rogue Federal Government itself has made this a county issue that must be addressed at the local issue. There is no argument to this whatsoever.
“Coos County should mind its own business!? EXACTLY!
The Declaration of Independence tells us the only real responsibility of a legitimate government, any legitimate government, is to “secure” our fundamental God given rights. Under the Constitution’s Article VI section 3 all state officers must take an oath to “support” the federal constitution.
The oath is not limited to county affairs but to the affairs of this federalist constitutional Republic. Preservation of the constitutional Republic is the first and most important duty of all citizens and all government officials.
Their oath, anyone’s oath, to support the Constitution is the primary oath and obligation all citizen in this country and their representative elected officials have. Without our Liberty which direction the sewage flows or when the garbage is picked up is not all that important.
The position of two of the Coos County Commissioners (one of which is an attorney) is in-apposite to their oath and the founding principles of this nation. They simply either do not understand how our government is suppose to function or they do not care.
Our elected officials are suppose to follow the direct of the majority of the citizens within the bounds of the Constitution. If the Constitution is violated they are duty bound legally and morally to resist such. They do not have the luxury of waiting on someone else to take action first.
It is also amazing they apparently don’t realize that under our system of federalism the state and local government do not have to participate in the enforcement of federal law even if it is constitutional.
Therefore their action says they support the NDAA even though it is unconstitutional. We citizens deserve better and the Republic must have better if we are to save her. Constitutional Attorney Richard D. Fry.”
MORE news The World and their stenographers refused to print UNTIL after The Register Guard printed it. Can’t even cover bad-apple-fired-local dirty cops. Not a peep from Clark and his “new” toadie, until a REAL news organization prints it first. What an abysmal excuse for a “news”paper. Sad. And THIS isn’t know by your local paper.
Look what sentence a dirty cop gets for dealing drugs in Coos County:
Ex-officer pleads guilty to steroid dealer tip-off
Print Email
2 hours ago
(0) Comments
A former North Bend police officer has pleaded guilty in federal court to tipping off a distributor of illegal steroids about a federal investigation.
The Eugene Register-Guard reports (http://bit.ly/19qC6nz) that 43-year-old William Blair Downing was sentenced Tuesday to five years of probation as part of the plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to warning the distributor, as well as possessing steroids himself.
Downing quit the North Bend force in June 2011 on the day a search warrant was served at his home and he was interviewed by federal agents. He now lives in Florida.
___
Information from: The Register-Guard, http://www.registerguard.com
I disagree with The Coos BOC endorsing the Oathkeepers resolution. I don’t like the new Federal policy and it should be protested and rescinded but not under the auspices of the oath keepers. They are a highly questionable group. Unfortunately I agree with the World on this. The Commissioners are free to disagree with this Federal Policy themselves. IT is an enormous invasion of policy! Even though I voted for Obama his policies NSA policies are wrong. He needs to stop this course of action by the NSA.
As you say, the Board of County Commissioners have used their “voice” to express disagreement with certain Federal policies. They can do that without aligning themselves with this right-wing group. I urge them to do so. Lets get the Commissioners to “pay attention” to their own County business, rather than allowing County Counsel and the Department Heads to supervise themselves.
You are right, all I have suggested is that the board facilitate the conversation to enable these disparate groups and individuals who are all willing to work together in order to produce a document tailored to Coos County. It doesn’t have to be the Oath Keepers version by any stretch.
Have you noticed that Clarkie and his underlings have managed to lose only about 200 customers this reporting period. He has been losing about 10% every six months. Wim, Clarkie needs a lesson about the hallowed ground of Scheveningen where the governing body at one time took the lives of locals who spoke their minds and got involved.
Funny me. When I have an issue with the City, I contact the City. At the County level, I go to the County Board of Commissioners. I get in touch with my elected State representative for State business, and one may contact the Federal representatives for anything involving Federal law. I don’t complain to local offcials about decisions, laws and policies being implemented at the Federal level. Why, you may ask? The County Board of Commissioners have no legal authority or jursidiction over Federal law. Does anyone really think the US is going to expend time and ordnance on Coos County? There must be a few locations other than Coos County that would be of more interest. Maybe the sky isn’t falling!
We all start there, Ron, and when that doesn’t work we come back to the local level and work our way up. Usually it is best to do both simultaneously.
Agreed on that one!
Richard
These heavily armed citizens could invest in drones of their own…
Coos County should be quite concerned about federal security issues because if this LNG export terminal and pipeline goes in there will be a major federal security presence in Coos and Douglas Counties. The Feds are well aware of the heavily armed citizens in this neighborhood and they are as scared of domestic terrorists as those from another country. Feds will be visible but also there will be a real presence that will be under wraps. These agencies will kill and disappear anyone they percieve as a threat. They will shot back with drones and overwheming firepower. Hey but this creates jobs! Besides the idea of a free society is so 17th century. A police state is good for business!
They don’t want to be seen as weak, kowtowing to the rabble
Can’t ya just see Clark and his new understudy shuffling around with their noses up the skirts of The Job Messiahs? They are, in my opinion only, just a couple of stenographers hoping to make it into Blondie’s next red-slippered video. Lemmings to those they perceive are those “leading” this county. Ha! What a joke, leading us where Clarkie? Where are they leading us to now? Oh, fencing off what passes for a waterfront in Coos Bay? What a joke, not only does this community allow it, he promotes the Rusting of Coos County, only now they want to hide their rusted railroad from the public? Let’s get this straight: the Port is ordered to fence their god damned rusted rails, from someone, so the city just happens to “fall” into line and has now taken on that role. Why? That damned “train” goes 10 miles an hour, once a week, has to pull off the tracks for 24 hours outside Florence, and it’s called the life blood, and the future of Coos County? Are you kidding me? How much is Roseburg Forest Prod. paying for that pleasure? And the company in Reedsport, how many hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to service these two companies? And maybe some dairy feed? Takes five or six days to get to Eugene and it’s called an essential service? Hire some hookers from Seattle if you want service, this Koch-Sucker ain’t no different from the last one, is he? Come on guys, we have to stop this madness, this railroad is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING but Koch’s next paycheck. Grow up and stop the bleeding down this port hole. My humble opinion.
Yes, the port doesn’t care who it invites to be our next neighbor, no matter how bad their reputation or how they screwed their last neighbor.
In a nutshell, this seems to be the outlook of The World, the local ecodevo mafia and the County Commissioners:
As long as there’s money in it, we have no qualms about getting involved in federal politics. But something trifling in our book — a federal law enabling indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial or evidence — why should we care?
They have a point, of course, since such things were only obsessed about by a bunch of funny old guys in 18th century wigs, who took them seriously enough to foment an insurrection that caused many to lose their lives and their property. How quaint. Maybe we need a retrospective evaluation of the Founders’ mental health. Paid for with a federal grant, of course. The County might support THAT.