I'm no conspiracy theorist. I don't hold to the "9/11 Truther" movement, I don't believe the government killed JFK, and I don't hold to the belief that martians are abducting us to use for experiments.
Okay, maybe the last one is believable.
Beyond this, I have watched for a year or two as the signs of our republic losing itself became increasingly clear. I watched the creation of the Patriot Act; I watched the government violate the Constitution with warrant less wire taps of it's own citizens in the name of "security"; I've watched our intelligence services and military forces be weakened to the point that they can barely maintain a standing presence on our own shores and abroad. Most importantly, I've watched this current administration chip away at the rights of our citizens and our states.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has begun the small slide that has the power to begin the second American Revolution. Thursday, October 8, 2009, the state legislature passed Massachusetts Pandemic Bill s.2028, effectively giving control of the state to the governor at any time on the basis that "...an emergency exists which is detrimental to the public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency under chapter 639 of the acts of 1950, as amended..."
Under this bill, the governor can declare a "state of emergency", effectively installing martial law (or close to it) on the basis that a virulent disease is spreading.
In other words, at this time all power can be centralized to the Governor, Duvall Patrick, on the basis that the H1N1 virus (more commonly, though incorrectly, referred to as the "swine flu") is a pandemic. He could declare it tonight.
This bill allows them to force vaccinations on anyone. Penalties for refusal include confinement to one's home, confinement to a prison or hospital (and you know if they confine you there, they will force the vaccine on you), and/or a fine not exceeding $1,000/day you refuse to take the vaccine. Among other problems is the following unconstitutional clauses found in the bill:
(1) Public safety / health care / volunteer personnel waived from any criminal / civil liability for any civil or medical negligence / rights violations / death / injury (lines 19-24, 180-81, 190-192, 292-98).
Explanation: In the military, we are not able to file a lawsuit or grievance against the government or the military medical corps for improper procedures or improper diagnosis of an issue. Jokingly, we used to say that the reason it said "Property of the United States Government" on the CAC cards solidified this. However, this allows congress to use improperly-tested drugs ("vaccines") without fear of repercussions. After all, now a doctor doesn't have to worry about a medical malpractice suit if you suddenly end up with a life-threatening cancer from the drug!
(2) Allows dispensing controlled substances i.e. drugging people against their will (line 65).
Explanation: A lot of people would say this isn't so bad. After all, who doesn't enjoy the highs of percocet and the like? But the problem is, with this they can force it on you, weakening your resistance and resolve. You'll get that H1N1 vaccine that isn't properly tested whether you like it or not!
(3) Persons violating unconstitutional orders of a local public health authority shall be punished by Up to: 6 months imprisonment / $1000 fine (lines 77-80).
Explanation: Okay, this one is worded a bit differently, so let me clarify. I've stated before that as a member of the military it is your duty to refuse orders that are unlawful and, thus, unconstitutional. If the police come to your door and attempt to enter without a warrant, which they can do during this "state of emergency", that is a breach of your fourth amendment rights (protection against unlawful search and siezure), and because you exercise your rights you can be held as a prisoner, and/or fined.
(4) Government control over: transportation, materials, facilities, including but not limited to: communications, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing, shelter (lines 81-84)
Explanation: Just start singing the anthem of the former-USSR now. Propaganda, the inability to contact loved ones...you'll be forced to be subjugated, or you're not getting food, water, electricity, etc. As we saw with Katrina, even if people do as they're told, they may not get these anyways (FEMA made sure of this).
(5) Determination of reasonable cause to believe that a “condition dangerous to public health” (could include firearms) exists or may exist authorizes: investigation, isolation, quarantine, obtain medical records and other information, monitor, prevent, control (lines 134-35, 204-210) Notwithstanding and regardless of any GOAL position, the chief author of the Model State bill used to craft S-2028 / H-4271 wrote / testified / promotes proven false theory that: “Firearms are a public health crisis … firearms actually make the public less safe.” H-4271 fails to exclude and protect 2nd Amendment / Article XVII well-regulated right to keep and bear tools from being determined by health authorities to be a “condition dangerous to public health”.
Explanation: This one should be self-explanatory. You can't put up an armed resistance if you don't have weapons to do it with. This goes along with (3), in that they are removing your fourth amendment rights in order to make sure you don't have a second amendment right. It will be just like Katrina, in which government officials confiscated weapons that were legally owned and registered, even though looters were running around armed.
(6) Forced isolation / quarantine to other private or public premises / area i.e. kidnapped / taken to undisclosed location / camp (lines 219-222)• May take such action to assure maintenance of public health / may establish procedures to ensure continuation of essential public health (lines 4-14) >> too vague; opens door to abuse.
Explanation: Ever hear those "crackpot" theories that the government likes to swoop in with armed men in black "pajamas" to sweep dissidents out of their homes in the middle of the night? Doesn't seem so crackpot now, does it? You don't want the vaccine "willingly"? Fine, you're coming with us and you're getting it at this undisclosed location. That, ladies and gentlemen, is kidnapping, a federal offense.
I'm taking the numbered portions from the following: http://www.masslpa.org/content/urgent-s-2028-pandemic-swine-flu-vaccine-action-thread, under the comments.
This is dangerous, ladies and gentlemen. I know many of you may be reading from other states and thinking to yourself, "Well, at least I don't live there!" The fact of the matter is, this passing the legislature sets a precedent. Any state can now draft a bill similar to this, tweak it to make sure it's "constitutionally acceptable" under the state constitution, and viola! You now have the possibility of the federal government, through the states, declaring martial law!
I'm speaking specifically to those who took an oath, now. You see your enemies. Those enemies are not in far-off shores, those enemies are sitting in the state and federal capitals of this great nation. These United States are being torn apart by internationalists. We are being destroyed by both the political left and right, by the Republicans and Democrats. We are being backed into a corner, and those of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution should now see their choices. I will tell you that as soon as this is enacted (the first time Duvall Patrick declares a "state of emergency"), we are at war with each other once again. You have a duty, to the Constitution and to the people of this great nation to defend them from tyranny.
Say what you will, but this is a very dangerous time to be alive. Let us pray for peace, but be ready for conflict.
DON'T TREAD ON ME!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Veterans Today Piece on Oath Keepers
As I have said before, I belong to a group called Oath Keepers. We are a non-partisan group who focus on reminding those who took the oath to support and defend the Constitution of what that truly means. Under that oath, you swear that you will defend the people if the government oversteps its boundaries, and you will defend the country against any threat that may come, from a foreign nation-state or from terrorist groups. Stewart Rhodes, our founder, has even said that if a tyrant comes form the left or the right, it won’t matter because we will treat him as an enemy just the same.
In short, we don’t care what your political affiliation is: we’ll stand up for what is right, which means we will stand by the people if that time comes.
Recently, Veterans Today published a piece on Oath Keepers. In it, retired Air Force major named Robert L. Hanafin accused Oath keepers of being a right-wing organization and, beyond this, that we actively encouraging active duty service members to disobey orders.
You can read the article here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8752#
Now, Mr. Hanafin has stated that refusal to follow an order (whether lawful or not) is against the law (both under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Hatch Act). Let’s look at both of these:
There are two different Hatch Acts, according to federal legislation. The first is the Hatch Act of 1887, which created agricultural experiment stations. The second is probably what he was referring to: the Hatch Act of of 1939, whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity (that is why during basic training, military recruits are told you can’t protest in uniform).
The Hatch Act of 1939 lists out what a federal employee can and can not do. No where in the general provision or any amendments to the law does it say that violating a military order is against the law and is punishable as such. So when Mr. Hanafin says that it is something “most of our troops, including Junior Officers don't know the meaning of”, I think he is incorrect. I think it is something that he doesn’t know the meaning of, and I’m hoping he reads this and does some research of his own.
Now, on to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is the governing body of law for the military. It lists out what you can be charged for, the regulations for pre-trial confinement, non-judicial punishment, etc. Mr. Hanafin says that under the UCMJ, it is unlawful to disobey an order, which would be correct in most circumstances. This would fall under several articles, namely Article 81 (conspiracy), Article 88 (contempt towards officials) if they are a commissioned officer, Article 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation), Article 94 (mutiny or sedition), Article 98 (noncompliance with procedural rules), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), and Article 134 (general article). My, that’s a lot of articles he has to stand on, isn’t it! Let’s take a look at a few of them, shall we?
Article 81 reads as such: “Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Article 81 states that any person who enters into agreement with another person is guilty of being a co-conspirator. However, what does this mean? Conspiracy to commit a felonious act, such as murder, is what is covered here. For all intents and purposes, a conspiracy is how they are able to get witness testimony from other guilty parties, assuming the prosecution does not want to offer leniency on the other charges. Is Oath Keepers a conspiracy?
To meet the requirements, it would have to be proven that:
(1) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to willfully disobey lawful orders from their chain of command;
(2) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to act against superiors, and;
(3) Oath Keepers is attempting to solicit the general attention of the military and, thus, interrupt the good order and discipline of the military.
Does Oath Keepers meet these requirements? No, they do not. Oath Keepers is not asking the military to disobey the lawful orders given by their chain of command. We expect that those who serve would remember their oath to the Constitution so that if the time comes to choose between protecting the rights of the people and acting as the government’s arm to remove those rights, they will do the right thing and live up to their oath.
The next article, Article 88, reads as such: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
In short, Article 88 says that any officer who speaks openly against the Executive branch, Legislative branch, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of (fill in the blank with the appropriate military branch), the Secretary of Transportation, or any state government is guilty under this article. Going back to conspiracy, Oath Keepers is not requesting that officers act out against the government under normal circumstances.
Now, I can go on and list out the articles themselves, and I can list out how those who do as they are required by their oath do not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a former commissioned officer, Mr. Hanafin should understand the UCMJ better then he lets on. If anyone wants me to list out the rest of the articles (I have a copy of the Manual for Courts-Martial, so you know), I will be more then happy to do so and explain exactly how Mr. Hanafin is incorrect.
Suffice it to say, my belief that Robert L. Hanafin was an Air Force officer is gone. Not only is his argument faulty, but his responses to some of the people who leave comments contradicting his “article” leave something to be desired. I expect someone who claims to be a retired major and, beyond that, a former GS-14 with the Department of Justice to be a bit more tactful and respectful of dissenting opinions. Adding insult to injury, in one rebuttal of a reader’s comment he use Wikipedia as a means to provide “factual information” to solidify and back up his statements. I will be contacting the Air Force BUPERS to find out if there truly was a Major Robert L. Hanafin, under the Freedom of Information Act. I am truly interested in finding out the legitimacy of this man’s status.
Semper fidelis.
In short, we don’t care what your political affiliation is: we’ll stand up for what is right, which means we will stand by the people if that time comes.
Recently, Veterans Today published a piece on Oath Keepers. In it, retired Air Force major named Robert L. Hanafin accused Oath keepers of being a right-wing organization and, beyond this, that we actively encouraging active duty service members to disobey orders.
You can read the article here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8752#
Now, Mr. Hanafin has stated that refusal to follow an order (whether lawful or not) is against the law (both under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Hatch Act). Let’s look at both of these:
There are two different Hatch Acts, according to federal legislation. The first is the Hatch Act of 1887, which created agricultural experiment stations. The second is probably what he was referring to: the Hatch Act of of 1939, whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity (that is why during basic training, military recruits are told you can’t protest in uniform).
The Hatch Act of 1939 lists out what a federal employee can and can not do. No where in the general provision or any amendments to the law does it say that violating a military order is against the law and is punishable as such. So when Mr. Hanafin says that it is something “most of our troops, including Junior Officers don't know the meaning of”, I think he is incorrect. I think it is something that he doesn’t know the meaning of, and I’m hoping he reads this and does some research of his own.
Now, on to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is the governing body of law for the military. It lists out what you can be charged for, the regulations for pre-trial confinement, non-judicial punishment, etc. Mr. Hanafin says that under the UCMJ, it is unlawful to disobey an order, which would be correct in most circumstances. This would fall under several articles, namely Article 81 (conspiracy), Article 88 (contempt towards officials) if they are a commissioned officer, Article 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation), Article 94 (mutiny or sedition), Article 98 (noncompliance with procedural rules), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), and Article 134 (general article). My, that’s a lot of articles he has to stand on, isn’t it! Let’s take a look at a few of them, shall we?
Article 81 reads as such: “Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Article 81 states that any person who enters into agreement with another person is guilty of being a co-conspirator. However, what does this mean? Conspiracy to commit a felonious act, such as murder, is what is covered here. For all intents and purposes, a conspiracy is how they are able to get witness testimony from other guilty parties, assuming the prosecution does not want to offer leniency on the other charges. Is Oath Keepers a conspiracy?
To meet the requirements, it would have to be proven that:
(1) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to willfully disobey lawful orders from their chain of command;
(2) Oath Keepers requires active duty service members to act against superiors, and;
(3) Oath Keepers is attempting to solicit the general attention of the military and, thus, interrupt the good order and discipline of the military.
Does Oath Keepers meet these requirements? No, they do not. Oath Keepers is not asking the military to disobey the lawful orders given by their chain of command. We expect that those who serve would remember their oath to the Constitution so that if the time comes to choose between protecting the rights of the people and acting as the government’s arm to remove those rights, they will do the right thing and live up to their oath.
The next article, Article 88, reads as such: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
In short, Article 88 says that any officer who speaks openly against the Executive branch, Legislative branch, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of (fill in the blank with the appropriate military branch), the Secretary of Transportation, or any state government is guilty under this article. Going back to conspiracy, Oath Keepers is not requesting that officers act out against the government under normal circumstances.
Now, I can go on and list out the articles themselves, and I can list out how those who do as they are required by their oath do not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a former commissioned officer, Mr. Hanafin should understand the UCMJ better then he lets on. If anyone wants me to list out the rest of the articles (I have a copy of the Manual for Courts-Martial, so you know), I will be more then happy to do so and explain exactly how Mr. Hanafin is incorrect.
Suffice it to say, my belief that Robert L. Hanafin was an Air Force officer is gone. Not only is his argument faulty, but his responses to some of the people who leave comments contradicting his “article” leave something to be desired. I expect someone who claims to be a retired major and, beyond that, a former GS-14 with the Department of Justice to be a bit more tactful and respectful of dissenting opinions. Adding insult to injury, in one rebuttal of a reader’s comment he use Wikipedia as a means to provide “factual information” to solidify and back up his statements. I will be contacting the Air Force BUPERS to find out if there truly was a Major Robert L. Hanafin, under the Freedom of Information Act. I am truly interested in finding out the legitimacy of this man’s status.
Semper fidelis.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Opinion: David Hedrick
I really hadn't intended to use this blog as a means of conveying my opinions. I was going to simply use this as a means of providing relevant facets of information to you, my reader, and allowing you to make your own decisions. However, I realize now that this is something that is simply impossible. Okay, maybe not impossible, but it would certainly be hard to do. You are more then welcome to skip any "OP ED" piece I write, but if you don't then I thank you for taking the time out of your day to read this, and any other blog post I make.
As a former Marine, I feel a connection to those members of the Corps that have served and continue to serve under our colors. And it brings a tear to my eye when I see people like the following Marine do his job, even if he doesn't wear that uniform anymore.
David Hedrick is a former Corporal who saw himself sitting overseas during his enlistment. He has been seen on YouTube as the most famous, outspoken critic against Rep. Brian Baird (D - WA). The Associated Press ran an editorial about this, and the author said the following about Cpl. Hedrick's presence:
"The month of August has not been a pleasant one for members of Congress, especially those of the President's party. Many members of the Congress are unused to the experience of having their constituents getting in their faces and telling them what they can and cannot do. Getting chewed out by a member of the hoi polloi is uncomfortable enough. Being chewed out by a veteran of the Marine Corps, where they inflict and experience chewings out like a gourmand experiences food, must be the Ninth Circle of Hell."
Thank you, Mark Whittington of the Associated Press. That article brought a smile to my face as I remembered that nostalgia.
Now, for those who haven't seen the video of him taking Congressman Baird to task on his support of Obamacare, he called the man to task on many things:
1.) Stay away from our kids. You aren't indoctrinating them into anything (and if you don't believe there is indoctrination going on, tell that to the parents of the Burlington, New Jersey elementary school children).
2.) The Nazis, as Nancy Pelosi has so graciously referred to anyone speaking against Obamacare, were a leftist organization. Despite the "conservative" views that many people would attribute to them, they were the National Socialist Party of Germany. They nationalized health care, the automotive industry, and pretty much anything they could. So if Speaker Pelosi or other members of the government want to look at us and say, "You're all a bunch of brownshirts" (referring to the SS and Gestapo), then maybe she should take a bit of history and see who's following the Nazi path.
3.) Our private health insurance is not something that you have the right to take away.
4.) When do members of Congress intend to uphold the oath to the Constitution?
Now this is a big thing. A Marine, someone who swore the same oath as this man who sits on the national political beltway, is "bitching out" the congressman. It's moments like this that bring a tear to my eye. I think I need to do something manly.
All joking aside, Brian Baird did nothing. He even went on to say that there would probably be a white truck with his name on it someday (I'm paraphrasing this), likening those who actually give a damn about the Constitution to Timothy McVeigh.
Let's look at the facts. The mainstream media has failed to cover the majority of the protests going on all over this country, and when they do they tend to have a liberal commentator or a member of the Democrat party available to say something derogatory about the citizens taking part. Form the tea parties to the opposition to Obamacare, anyone who is for the support of the Constitution and wanting to hold the federal government accountable is being branded as some type of radical. And yes, I hold Fox News to the same standard I am holding the other stations.
David Hedrick has said he intends to run for Congress in Washington state. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a true American patriot who fought for this country in a uniform and with a gun. As someone who is willing to put on a suit and tie and fight for us once again in the halls of Congress, this man has my vote (assuming it counted...Massachusetts is a few states separated from Washington.).
Semper fi, Corporal Hedrick.
As a former Marine, I feel a connection to those members of the Corps that have served and continue to serve under our colors. And it brings a tear to my eye when I see people like the following Marine do his job, even if he doesn't wear that uniform anymore.
David Hedrick is a former Corporal who saw himself sitting overseas during his enlistment. He has been seen on YouTube as the most famous, outspoken critic against Rep. Brian Baird (D - WA). The Associated Press ran an editorial about this, and the author said the following about Cpl. Hedrick's presence:
"The month of August has not been a pleasant one for members of Congress, especially those of the President's party. Many members of the Congress are unused to the experience of having their constituents getting in their faces and telling them what they can and cannot do. Getting chewed out by a member of the hoi polloi is uncomfortable enough. Being chewed out by a veteran of the Marine Corps, where they inflict and experience chewings out like a gourmand experiences food, must be the Ninth Circle of Hell."
Thank you, Mark Whittington of the Associated Press. That article brought a smile to my face as I remembered that nostalgia.
Now, for those who haven't seen the video of him taking Congressman Baird to task on his support of Obamacare, he called the man to task on many things:
1.) Stay away from our kids. You aren't indoctrinating them into anything (and if you don't believe there is indoctrination going on, tell that to the parents of the Burlington, New Jersey elementary school children).
2.) The Nazis, as Nancy Pelosi has so graciously referred to anyone speaking against Obamacare, were a leftist organization. Despite the "conservative" views that many people would attribute to them, they were the National Socialist Party of Germany. They nationalized health care, the automotive industry, and pretty much anything they could. So if Speaker Pelosi or other members of the government want to look at us and say, "You're all a bunch of brownshirts" (referring to the SS and Gestapo), then maybe she should take a bit of history and see who's following the Nazi path.
3.) Our private health insurance is not something that you have the right to take away.
4.) When do members of Congress intend to uphold the oath to the Constitution?
Now this is a big thing. A Marine, someone who swore the same oath as this man who sits on the national political beltway, is "bitching out" the congressman. It's moments like this that bring a tear to my eye. I think I need to do something manly.
All joking aside, Brian Baird did nothing. He even went on to say that there would probably be a white truck with his name on it someday (I'm paraphrasing this), likening those who actually give a damn about the Constitution to Timothy McVeigh.
Let's look at the facts. The mainstream media has failed to cover the majority of the protests going on all over this country, and when they do they tend to have a liberal commentator or a member of the Democrat party available to say something derogatory about the citizens taking part. Form the tea parties to the opposition to Obamacare, anyone who is for the support of the Constitution and wanting to hold the federal government accountable is being branded as some type of radical. And yes, I hold Fox News to the same standard I am holding the other stations.
David Hedrick has said he intends to run for Congress in Washington state. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a true American patriot who fought for this country in a uniform and with a gun. As someone who is willing to put on a suit and tie and fight for us once again in the halls of Congress, this man has my vote (assuming it counted...Massachusetts is a few states separated from Washington.).
Semper fi, Corporal Hedrick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)