Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Milita | Government and Political Conspiracies | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Milita
January 5, 2012
10:59 pm
Avatar
katsung47
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 834
Member Since:
February 23, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention.

Merry Christmas, US Senateby Ralph LopezFollow .
.Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:33 PM PST.
UPDATE 12/26/2011:

This is from a statement from Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers regarding Republican Denny Rehberg as a target of recall, who also voted for NDAA.

Here in Montana, while we will go after all three violators of the Bill of Rights, I will place special emphasis and "focus of effort" on Denny Rehberg, since he is so fond of wrapping himself in the flag and claiming to be defending the Constitution while his votes do the exact opposite. In that sense, Rehberg is much like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two Republicans who, right along with Carl Levin and Joseph Lieberman, are leading a sustained and relentless assault on our Bill of Rights.
Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 ... -US-Senate

January 19, 2012
1:04 am
Avatar
katsung47
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 834
Member Since:
February 23, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online
David Seaman |January 05, 2012

In case you've been living under a particularly large and comfy rock, the NDAA is a radical and dangerous bill -- which Barack Hussein Obama quietly signed into law on New Year's Eve, while almost every American was preoccupied with New Year's binge drinking. (His administration had previously vowed to veto the NDAA, before strangely reversing course and signing it into law. He issued a signing statement saying his administration would not use the controversial indefinite detention provisions. This promise, however, is not legally binding -- and it also does not prevent future Presidents from detaining and torturing American citizens without the right to a trial or attorney, and without bringing formal charges against them. The signing statement is the legal equivalent of a Post-it note affixed to a manuscript.)

....
http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... -detention

January 20, 2012
3:43 am
Avatar
ricardo
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1493
Member Since:
December 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"katsung47" wrote: National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online
David Seaman |January 05, 2012
In case you've been living under a particularly large and comfy rock, the NDAA is a radical and dangerous bill -- which Barack Hussein Obama quietly signed into law on New Year's Eve, while almost every American was preoccupied with New Year's binge drinking. (His administration had previously vowed to veto the NDAA, before strangely reversing course and signing it into law. He issued a signing statement saying his administration would not use the controversial indefinite detention provisions. This promise, however, is not legally binding -- and it also does not prevent future Presidents from detaining and torturing American citizens without the right to a trial or attorney, and without bringing formal charges against them. The signing statement is the legal equivalent of a Post-it note affixed to a manuscript.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
friend .
when it goes to the supreme court. it may or may not be overturned.
the challenge will be to the highest level in our land to decide its constitutionality. not president Obama. note: his advisement is noted at this juncture as well. ( reservations) I hear you and agree . I'm concerned too.
a tactical move for long term strategic wellness of our country.

....
http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... -detention

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
70 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10232

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24017

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8696

Posts: 123384

Newest Members:

Joanna, Melanie, chetney sessoms, Horatius, Express Documents, PaulDee094, Gary Wayne Ponder, AuthenticDocuments, matic mogan, nativembonyesiwe

Administrators: John Greenewald: 570, blackvault: 1776