Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: NDAA

Navy Chaplain Exonerated, Cleared, and Reinstated

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, October 30, 2015:  

In his letter exonerating Navy Chaplain Wesley “Wes” Modder in September, Rear Admiral David Steindl wrote: “I have found the evidence of substandard performance in this case does not meet the standard of gross negligence or complete disregard of duty … Modder will not be detached for cause.”

The incident will be removed from his official personnel file. Modder has accepted an order to serve as chaplain at the Navy’s base in San Diego.

Modder’s record as Navy chaplain is impressive.

Keep Reading…

Cassidy Replaces Landrieu; GOP Gains Nine Senate Seats

This article first appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 8, 2014:

The Louisiana runoff election on Saturday for U.S. Senate was closer than many polls indicated, with Congressman Bill Cassidy  defeating three-term incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu by 56 percent to 44 percent. Coupled with Republican victories in two Louisiana House districts, Republicans will have 54 votes in the new Senate (out of 100) and 246 votes in the new House of Representatives (out of 435). Remarkably, Democrats will be without a single governor or U.S. senator across nine Old South states, from the Carolinas to Texas.

Louisianans didn’t so much vote for Cassidy as they voted to get rid of Landrieu, once considered one of the Democrat Party’s strongest incumbents. She has been a staunch supporter of most of Obama’s policies, including

Keep Reading…

The Supreme Court Passes on an Opportunity to Defend Freedom

Call to Action! National Defense Authorization...

Call to Action! National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867) Makes America a Police State! (g1a2d0077c1) (Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil)

This article first appeared at The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, May 2, 2014: 

Rarely does the Supreme Court have the opportunity to rectify major wrongs and mend egregious infringements coming from an out-of-control federal government: wrongs so outrageous that they threaten the very basis of society, so extreme that they risk emasculating and eviscerating the legal basis of an ordered existence, so far-reaching that they neutralize major amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

On Monday, April 28, the Court had that opportunity, and they whiffed.

Keep Reading…

Supreme Court Refuses to hear case Against NDAA Unlawful Detention

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: View of the World Trade Center and the Statue of Liberty. (Image: US National Park Service ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Within days of Congress reauthorizing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in January 2012, Brian Trautman summarized it perfectly:

This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.”

The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.”

But because the “war on terror” is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.

Keep Reading…

Ron Paul’s Freedom Movement is Just Getting Started

Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic.

Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In his latest statement to his supporters, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul answered a number of questions but left open many more. After announcing in May that he would no longer participate in any other presidential primaries but would concentrate instead on states where primaries had already been held in the hopes of generating additional support, his supporters now know two things: First, he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination in Tampa, Florida, over the weekend of August 27, with just 200 bound delegates. Second, he expects there will be more than 500 delegates there supporting his position, which is far more than anyone anticipated.

He wrote:

We stand to send nearly 200 bound delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. This number shatters the predictions of the pundits and talking heads and shows the seriousness of our movement.

What’s more, we will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy.

When it is all said and done, we will likely have as many as 500 supporters as delegates on the Convention floor…and while this is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP!

This clarifies the purpose of his efforts during the presidential campaign. He likely never expected to win the nomination. What he hoped would happen is exactly what did happen:

Keep Reading…

CISPA Assumes Too Much Trust in Government

iPad tablet

In a surprise move the White House issued a statement on Wednesday threatening to veto CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Actbecause of privacy concerns. Parts of the statement sounded as if they had been drafted by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul:

The sharing of information [between private agencies and the federal government] must be conducted in a manner that preserves American’s privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace. Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive…

[CISPA]…repeal[s] important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards…

The bill also lacks sufficient limitation on the sharing of personally identifiable information…and does not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures…to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes…

The bill effectively treats domestic cybersecurity as an intelligence activity and thus, significantly departs from longstanding efforts to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres.

This is the first time in recent memory that the White House has expressed any such concerns. When signing into law the controversial National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA] the White House blithely ignored its trampling of those same civil liberties through its “indefinite detention” provisions. Nor did the White House raise any similar concerns when it issued its executive order commandeering all resources from American citizens in the event of an emergency to be declared by the president.

So the following from the White House’s statement on CISPA makes perfect sense: the White House favors government regulation of the internet and invasion of privacy without following the Fourth Amendment. It just doesn’t want

Keep Reading…

Colorado Senator Bennet Refuses to Answer Questions About the NDAA

Michael Bennet, Colorado Politician

I have rarely been as concerned for the future of freedom and our Constitution as I have been since the passage last December of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.  I have rarely felt more frustrated with a politician than I am with Colorado Senator Michael Bennet (D) for responding to concerns about NDAA with nothing but disinformation and silence.

People with expertise in this area have voiced grave concerns about provisions of NDAA, particularly in Section 1031, which allow the government to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or due process based on mere suspicions about their support for terrorism or terrorist organizations.

Concerns about provisions so antithetical to the Constitution would be warranted any time.  But, they’re even more ominous since the Department of Homeland Security told us in 2009 it considers ordinary citizens who exercise their rights to purchase guns or who serve in the military to be “right wing extremists” and potential terrorists.  This motivated me to look a little more deeply into what Colorado Senator Bennet, who voted in favor of S. 1867 had to say.

So, I contacted Senator Bennet’s office in mid-December, 2011 asking him to explain his support for S. 1867 and to clarify concerns about S. 1867 viz-a-viz the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

I received an email from Senator Bennet’s office saying

Keep Reading…

One Lonely State Representative Opposes Indefinite Detention

UPDATE 1/17/2012: Correspondence with Daniel Gordon

Dear Rep. Gordon:

It was my privilege to write this article about your efforts which appeared yesterday at The New American. I hope you find it a fair treatment.

May I call you in a day or so to do a follow-up on your resolution?

Respectfully,

Bob Adelmann

 

Dear Mr. Adelmann,

The article you penned on the topic was nothing short of outstanding, and I am proud to have had my efforts published by you and your excellent publication. Please do feel free to call for a follow up. There has been some very exciting developments over the past couple of days. The number in my signature is my cell and you are free to use it. Thank you.

Best Regards,

Dan

A cell inside the detention facility in the Pa...

Rhode Island Representative Daniel Gordon has drafted a resolution to express his opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) “that suspended habeas corpus and civil liberties” under Section 1021.

That section of the act, signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve:

provides for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and [the] right to trial.

Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeas corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone [who] has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country….

When I took the oath of office, I swore that I would support the constitutions of Rhode Island and the United States. And before one constituent of mine is snatched up in the dead of night, without due process under our laws, they’ll have to pry those documents from my cold dead hands.

Gordon has a lot of company in his opposition to the NDAA. Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s candidate for President in 2008, wrote: “Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under

Keep Reading…

Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Remains Alive and Well

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

On March 30 of last year, President Obama dropped in to greet Sarah Brady, who was meeting with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. Sarah is the wife of Jim Brady, the former White House Press Secretary under Reagan, who was shot but not killed in an assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981. The Bradys subsequently became strong supporters of gun control. According to Brady, the President brought up the issue of gun control “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda. [The President said,] ‘I just want you to know that we are working on [additional limits on gun ownership]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.'”

Thanks to the efforts of freedom advocates such as John Lott, Obama’s efforts to stay under the radar are now glistening in the sunlight. Lott reviewed an unsettling and lengthy list of Obama’s “processes,” starting with the President’s intention to ignore at least 20 parts of the 2012 omnibus spending bill that he signed into law last week. Using the controversial and likely unconstitutional “signing statements,” Obama said, “I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility…such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.” Buried in the 1,200-page bill was a restriction that bars health officials from using taxpayer funds to lobby for gun control. To rub it in, Obama iterated his position: “Our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.” In plain English, the President just told Congress to go jump—he was going to do what he wanted to do, regardless.

Lott noted that Obama’s Interior Department just issued new administrative rules that threatened the use of public lands for recreational shooting. The language of the new regulations reads in part: 

Keep Reading…

Oath Keepers Launches Effort to Recall Members of Congress

Oath Keepers 1_2

In response to the passage by the House and the Senate of the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (NDAA), Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, announced a national effort to recall every member who voted for the act.

Oath Keepers was founded by Rhodes to encourage current members of the military services and veterans to keep their oath to protect and defend the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Members commit to following certain “orders we will not obey,” including, as especially relevant to NDAA, Number Three:

We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

What appears to be reasonable on the surface is complicated by the actual “Oath of Enlistment” sworn by members of the military, to wit:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Oath Keepers has taken the position that when the President gives an order not in compliance with the Constitution, their members should

Keep Reading…

Bill of Rights Day: Celebration or Mourning?

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

The Cato Institute’s newspaper ad reminding citizens that December 15th was Bill of Rights Day summarized the desperate shape those first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States is in, thanks to an overweening government and an uninformed citizenry. Reviewing each of the amendments, Cato pointed  to specific infringements of each of them, concluding that “It’s a disturbing picture, to be sure, but not one the Framers of the Constitution would have found altogether surprising. They would sometimes refer to written constitutions as mere “parchment barriers” [to totalitarian government].

The erection of the original “parchment barrier,” the Bill of Rights, was initially considered unnecessary because the language of the Constitution explicitly enumerated limited powers to the newly created government and why should further protections against powers not even granted be needed? As “Brutus,” one of the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers, wrote: 

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2018 Bob Adelmann