This is EVERYTHING about this bill! Please please call the senators listed below…it’s in THEIR HANDS NOW… waiting on House committee members… PLEASE GET THIS OUT TO OTHERS ASAP!!! WE MUST MAKE CALLS!
FROM John Mica’s office: 1867 doesn’t come to the House now. It goes to conference to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions. That includes the provisions you are concerned about. Just wanted to let you know that the Congressman voted in support of HR 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. However, the article was incorrect that the House legislation contained a similar provision. The only reference to Sec 1031 and 1032 in the House bill deals with the definition of a Guantanamo Detainees (1031) and an extension of authority to make rewards for combating terrorism (1032). We passed our House version (different from the Senate’s) and the Senate will pass theirs and any differences will be worked out in Conference Committee. Looks like votervoice.net is a little loose with the facts and needs to be more careful about what they put out. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_cong_bills&docid=f:h1540rfs.txt.pdf
Question to John Mica’s office (FL CONGRESSMAN) If you could give me a list of those conferees and committees this will have to travel through and by.
FROM John Mica’s office No committees. Just conferees. I’ll see about getting you the list. … The House has not selected Conferees yet since the Senate just passed theirs last night. Here are the Senate Conferees:
Need-to-know info from Judge Napolitano – Constitutional Expert on Fox Business News on his show Freedom Watch – This was done BEFORE THE BILL PASSED!!! Click below (MUST SEE THESE VIDEOS!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q50h7u2L5Y and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PztCMUsNIjY&feature=related
1. Explanation on the Article 125 – Sodomy /Bestiality now legal!
2. Breakdown of the propaganda coming out of traitor Senator’s office.
3. Article on the breakdown of the treasons Detainment Bill S1867
4. The Udall Amendment (that Udall tried putting on to protect Americans …it failed and who voted NOT to protect us)
5. The ad from the Army for the “internment/relocation facilities for Americans”
6. The overall vote for S1867 in the Senate (only 7 Senators voted NO)
7. Article from our Neighbor… Canada on this bill….
Government Senate Repeals Bans on Sodomy and Bestiality in the Military
- Posted on December 2, 2011 at 3:06pm by Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to approve a defense authorization bill which included a provision that not only repealed the military ban on sodomy, but also repealed the ban on having sex with animals — or bestiality.
CNS News reported:
On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
It states: “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
The vote to remove sodomy from military law comes less than a year after President Barack Obama’s repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy for gay soldiers.
Tony Perkins, President of the conservative Family Research Council, said there’s a definite link between the repeal of DADT and the repeal of the sodomy law.
“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNS News. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”
This bill is nothing like came out of the House in May 2011 and then went to the Senate this past week – We need to contact our Representatives to not allow this to pass! ~victoria
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011
Many of you may have seen JR Sanchez’s e-mail from Rubio stating that many of us have misunderstood the provisions in Senate bill 1867. http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/fighting-for-florida?ID=a95aa173-c008-4248-8f23-bc3723b7fc8f Many thought the Patriot Act was a good idea in the beginning, but few agree today. Rahm Emanuel has stated that, “You should never let a good crisis go to waste.” Also remember that it will be judges that we will have no control over, giving their interpretation of this bill once it is passed. It will be of little use when senators Rubio, McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint state, “That is not what I voted for.”
Let’s pick out the pieces from Rubio’s letter: Sec. 1031 says, “any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.” Who gets to decide what hostilities, which belligerent act, and who is an enemy force. Did the Founding Fathers think that within the “enumerated powers”, Art. I, Sect. 8, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes” would stretch into every corner of our lives? Make us all wear seat belts and require the registration of all gun sales? The clause in Sec. 1031 of S 1867 is separated by commas for a reason. Have you seen Janet Napolitano’s criteria of a terrorist? May have car bumper stickers that may be subversive to the Federal government, carry a copy of the Bible or the US Constitution. I am current reading “Original Intent” by David Barton, and I always carry a hand gun and I am against abortion. I am four out of a possible eight, and a terrorist in Napolitano’s view.
“Giving clarity to the military in regard to its authority to detain people who have committed substantially harmful acts against the United States (read government).” When do you think they will arrest Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn? Would it be a far stretch that the Tea Party could be considered a substantial threat to the current government of the United States? Who gets to decide what is a harmful act?
“This detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.” Sec. 1032 says, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” This is a suspension of habeas corpus. The loophole here, this bill does not exclude civilian custody. GW Bush tried to suspend habeas corpus in Oct. 2006 by the Military Commissions Act, HR 6166, because he thought he would have to bring prisoners from Guantanamo to Illinois. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm Another web site at the time stated that Republican members of Congress flinched, choosing Bush over the Constitution. They are doing it again.
“This bill does NOT overturn the Posse Comitatus Act; the military will not be patrolling the streets.” If the US military arrests anyone on American soil, they have violated Possé Comitatus. This bill makes all of the United States of America a battle zone, and therefore the military may act in any capacity. Sections 1036 and 1037 spell out how detainees will be subjected to military tribunals at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.
Most of S 1867 is a military appropriations bill dealing with military contractors and buying a shopping list of military stores. Why was section 1031 hidden in the Thomas registry for this bill until some of us figured out how to access it? If any of these provisions are truly necessary, then put them in a stand-alone-bill. The Military Defense Authorization Act that the House voted on in June 2011 didn’t look anything like what the Senate is voting on, and the entire section about “Detainees” doesn’t exist in the House bill. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_cong_bills&docid=f:h1540rfs.txt.pdf
While I was listening to a presentation by Sheriff Mack in Jacksonville on Thursday evening, the entire Senate voted 93 – 7 to pass this bill. Sheriff Mack said that if this bill was to pass, it would be a “declaration of war” on the citizens of the United States. Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers has openly called all who voted in favor of this bill “traitors”. Our own Kris Anne Hall (Constitutional Lawyer) has called it a “Trojan Horse”.
The interpretation of this legislation will be made by an obscure court that will set the precedence for eternity. Remember a simple statement in the Preamble of the US Constitution gave us the “General Welfare Clause” that has created the welfare state we currently have. When are the courts going to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” also mentioned in the Preamble for the citizens of the United States of America?
I have exchanged several e-mails on Friday with John Mica’s chief-of-staff. Senate bill 1867 now will go to a group of conferees made up from both the Senate and the House. The House members have yet to be chosen, but the following list is of the Senators; Levin; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson of NE; Webb; McCaskill; Udall of CO; Hagan; Begich; Manchin; Shaheen; Gillibrand; Blumenthal; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Wicker; Brown of MA; Portman; Ayotte; Collins; Graham; Cornyn; Vitter. All of these voted for this bill; three Republicans (Rand Paul), three Democrats and Independent Bernie Sanders voted against this bill.
I won’t call anyone a liar, but I will never believe anything Marco Rubio ever says again…………Rick
by Justin Raimondo, November 30, 2011
Read more by Justin Raimondo
UDALL ADMENTMENT: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1746
This protected us…had they attached this to the S1867 bill. Here is Mark Udall’s argument to the President of the Senate. ~victoria comment
“Mr. President, I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.
These detainee provisions are unnecessary, counterproductive and potentially harmful to our counterterrorism efforts. And, Mr. President, I know I’ve said this a couple of times already, but it feels like they’re being rushed through in a manner that doesn’t serve us. The Department of Defense has had little input, there have been no hearings and earlier this week the changes were presented to us in the Armed Services Committee just hours before we were asked to vote on them.
These are just too important a set of questions to let them pass without a thorough review and far greater understanding of their effect on our national security and our fight against terrorism. It feels to me, to this senator, that we’re rushing hastily to address a solution in search of a problem. And we ought to hear from the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and our colleagues in other relevant committees before we act. Do we really believe that this Congress – again let me underline that – after ten years of successfully prosecuting the war on terror – should substitute its views for those of our homeland security leadership without careful analysis?
Mr. President, I recently received a letter signed by 18 retired military leaders in opposition to these provisions. The letter states that – quote – “mandating military custody would undermine legitimate law enforcement and intelligence operations crucial to our security at home and abroad.” Mr. President, I couldn’t agree more. And I’d ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in the record.
We are already trying and convicting terrorists in both civilian courts and under military commissions. The provisions that are in this bill would require the DOD to shift significant resources away from its mission to act on all the fronts all over the world and it would become a police force and jailer. This is not what they’re good at. This is not what we want them to do, and I think it has dangerous potentially consequences because we have limited resources, limited manpower.
We wouldn’t lose anything by taking a little bit more time to discuss and debate these provisions. But we could do real harm to our national security by allowing this language, un-scrutinized, to pass, and that’s precisely what our highest-ranking national security officers are warning us against doing. This is a debate we need to have. It’s a healthy debate, but we ought to be armed with all the facts and expertise before we move forward. The least we can do is take our time, be diligent and hear from those who will be affected by these new limitation on our ability to prosecute terrorists. And it concerns me, Mr. President, that we would tell our national security leadership, a bipartisan national security leadership, by the way, that we wouldn’t listen to them and that Congress knows better than they do. It doesn’t strike me that that’s the best way to secure and protect the American people.
So, Mr. President, that’s why I have filed amendment 1107. I think it’s a common-sense alternative that will protect our constitutional principles and beliefs, while also allowing us to keep our nation safe. The amendment has a clear aim, to ensure that we follow a thorough process and hear all views before rushing forward with new laws that could be harmful to our national security.
Mr. President, what’s in the amendment? It’s straightforward. Specifically, the amendment would require the defense, intelligence and law enforcement agencies report to Congress with recommendations for any additional authorities or flexibility that they need to detain and prosecute terrorists. In other words, let’s not put the cart before the horse or fix something that isn’t broken. Let’s first hear from the stakeholders as to what laws they believe need to be changed to give them better tools to do their jobs.
My amendment would then ask for hearings to be held so we can fully understand the views of respected national security experts. And moreover, it would require input from each of the relevant committees to ensure we have carefully considered the benefits and consequences of our actions. The chairmen of our judiciary and intelligence committees have deep concerns about the detainee provisions in the pending legislation. And of course, Mr. President, as we undergo this process, the existing laws that guide our actions today would remain in place. My amendment is straightforward, it’s common sense, and it allows us to make sure we will win the war on terror.”
YEAs —38 – PATRIOTS
|Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Coons (D-DE) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA)||Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)||Nelson (D-FL) Paul (R-KY) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)|
NAYs —60 – TRAITORS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!
|Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Brown (R-MA) Burr (R-NC) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC)||Grassley (R-IA) Hagan (D-NC) Hatch (R-UT) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (R-WI) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lee (R-UT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lugar (R-IN) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ)||McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS) Nelson (D-NE) Portman (R-OH) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Sessions (R-AL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Vitter (R-LA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS)|
Not Voting – 2
|Begich (D-AK)||Murkowski (R-AK)|
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIST by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Yeas – 93 Votes – TRAITORS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!
Grouped by Home State
|Alabama:||Sessions (R-AL), Yea||Shelby (R-AL), Yea|
|Alaska:||Begich (D-AK), Yea||Murkowski (R-AK), Yea|
|Arizona:||Kyl (R-AZ), Yea||McCain (R-AZ), Yea|
|Arkansas:||Boozman (R-AR), Yea||Pryor (D-AR), Yea|
|California:||Boxer (D-CA), Yea||Feinstein (D-CA), Yea|
|Colorado:||Bennet (D-CO), Yea||Udall (D-CO), Yea|
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
|Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea|
|Delaware:||Carper (D-DE), Yea||Coons (D-DE), Yea|
|Florida:||Nelson (D-FL), Yea||Rubio (R-FL), Yea|
|Georgia:||Chambliss (R-GA), Yea||Isakson (R-GA), Yea|
|Hawaii:||Akaka (D-HI), Yea||Inouye (D-HI), Yea|
|Idaho:||Crapo (R-ID), Yea||Risch (R-ID), Yea|
|Illinois:||Durbin (D-IL), Yea||Kirk (R-IL), Yea|
|Indiana:||Coats (R-IN), Yea||Lugar (R-IN), Yea|
|Iowa:||Grassley (R-IA), Yea||Harkin (D-IA), Nay PATRIOT|
|Kansas:||Moran (R-KS), Yea||Roberts (R-KS), Yea|
|Kentucky:||McConnell (R-KY), Yea||Paul (R-KY), Nay PATRIOT|