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

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Milita
Avatar
katsung47
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 845
Member Since:
February 23, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
January 5, 2012 - 10:59 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
katsung47
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 845
Member Since:
February 23, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
January 19, 2012 - 1:04 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
ricardo
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1494
Member Since:
December 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
January 20, 2012 - 3:43 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"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: Dietmar
50
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10317
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Newest Members:
Rainabrainz
Jeff
Rhys Simpson
quando BORIS
Neil Linaker
ChristianWeah
9LIVES
Allie
Madeline Thom
Mark Stark
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9247
Posts: 124672

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25008
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault