Tag Archives: Florida

What’s going on in the United States?

We have known for a long time that we don’t run Washington DC -that they run us. While the powers that be wage their war on on the world there’s a different kind of war going on here at home. We are undergoing a Constitution crisis and if we don’t see our way out of this mess we could be heading down a path of unrest. Lawmakers claim that the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) isn’t meant to be used against American born citizens in the United States yet the United States Government has already used this act to gun down two American citizens in Yemen. While in the heat of the moment you might be relieved but when you think about it you should be frightened! Our government killed two American citizens without due process. We have become a lawless nation!

When will we become the targets?

What about “collateral damage” in the states? It’s a slippery slope people!

Are we going to just let lawmakers take our liberties?
We have to stick together or we’ll fall apart.

Here is a post that was on Facebook last Friday and was taken down soon thereafter! This guy needs to GO!

Nicole Rogers Jeff Miller
Friday at 9:59pm •
• So you vote AGAINST the people and the Constitution by voting “no” to the NDAA amendment that would take out indefinite detention of American citizens? You realize by doing so you have voted “yes” to an American citizen having NO legal counsel, NO right to a jury of their peers, and NO right to a speedy trial. In doing so you have voted against me, my family, my friends, and the rest of the American population. I will never support someone who doesn’t support my rights. You have got to go Jeff Miller.
Unlike •
o You, Kelly Labonte, Joe Bouchard, Des Bracken and 9 others like this.

Marshall ‘Da Jeenyus’ Culpepper
Same goes for Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC) I’m asking people to write me in instead of voting for him. He may have an ‘education’ and a successful career and all that… and I am a H.S. Drop-out with a GED, but I know how to read, and understand what I’m reading. Those who voted against the Smith-Amash amendment are one of two things…. 1. Incompetent to perform their duties by FAILING to read and UNDERSTAND legislation before voting, or 2. TREASONOUS TRAITORS WHO MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
Friday at 10:03pm • Like • 4

Nicole Rogers Education does not equal common sense and the knowledge of right and wrong. I’d vote for you over these idiots any day!
Friday at 10:08pm • Unlike • 7

Winston Heisler Try telling that to some of the hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil, idiot supporters of a representative who consistantly votes to eliminate the Bill of Rights. Duh !
Saturday at 2:08am • Like • 1

Jeff Miller ‎Nicole Rogers The Amash amendment threatens our national security in order to coddle foreign enemy combatants. I do not support enemy combatants who attack our homeland during a time of war getting the same rights and privileges of American citizens, but that’s exactly this amendment does. I would suggest you go back and read the bill and the amendment.
Saturday at 8:51am • Like • 3

Nicole Rogers Oh trust me Jeff, I read the bill more closely than you.
Saturday at 11:58am via mobile • Like • 7

Nicole Rogers I also want to add my concern is for the rights of liberty and privacy for the American people NOT enemy combatants. Your suggestion that the amendment is helping to coddle foreign combatants is quite incorrect; the amendment stops the destruction of liberty as it pertains to the laws of privacy under the Constitution. Maybe you yourself should take another look.
Saturday at 1:39pm • Unlike • 7

Nicole Rogers By the way….when a FEDERAL judge says its unConstitutional….maybe the House and Senate should actually listen…

Saturday at 1:42pm • Like • 7

Winston Heisler
‎@Nicole Rogers..I think I’m in love. Way to go Nicole.. I feel a little lonely here at times. I’m one of the few who see’s Jeff’s voting record for what it is. Even if I had cause to seek help from his office, I’d eat shards of broken glass before I’d do like so many others, and beg at his feet.

You have to understand New-speak to communicate with Mr. Miller. Jeff prefers we have a Police State without those annoying constraints of the Constitution. All you have to look at is what is happening right now IN CHICAGO, ILLIONOIS. This is what their ultimate goal is, not just localized Martial Law, but a complete Police State Lockdown of all of America. All the draconian laws and Executive Orders that have been passed since 9/11, fit together quite nicely for what is now a Totalitarian Police State.

There is still hope in State Nullification and the Courts. As you mentioned, a NY Fed. Judge has set these bozo’s straight, a short lesson on Constitutionality, a subject our Civil Servants hate to hear.—–:

US district judge Katherine Forrest, in New York City’s eastern district, found that section 1021 of the NDAA– the key section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – which had been rushed into law amid secrecy and in haste on New Year’s Eve 2011, bestowing on any president the power to detain US citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial, “facially unconstitutional”.

Ooooh! Poor little Tyrants all upset by the Constitution??? It’s only a temporary setback, historically, Tyrants defy the laws of nature and of man till they ultimately destroy themselves.

Saturday at 2:02pm • Unlike • 4

Nicole Rogers So true. Many Americans are waking up tho Winston! We will not stand for the complete disregard of our liberties and freedoms much longer!
Saturday at 2:08pm via mobile • Unlike • 6

Jeff Miller ‎Nicole Rogers a federal judge also declared reciting the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-14-pledge-allegiance_x.htm By your earlier logic should the House and Senate listen to him?
4 hours ago • Like • 1

Jeff Miller
I think the WSJ sums up the problems with the Amash amendment quite well. “What {the Amash Amendment} means in practice is that if al Qaeda big Ayman al-Zawahiri and his soldiers are captured overseas (say, in Pakistan), they can be detained by the military, interrogated, and dispatched to wherever the Commander in Chief decides. But if they happen to make it to the U.S., they will have to be handled like your neighborhood burglar. That means being read their Miranda rights, handed over to the local police and put before a civilian judge. The military or CIA couldn’t question them to learn about future plots.
This is a bizarre distinction, as if America is not somehow part of the global terror battlefield. Try to explain that to the al Qaeda bombmakers in Yemen, or the residents of downtown Manhattan. The amendment would essentially reward al Qaeda operatives with better treatment for having the wit to get out of their caves and sneak into America to blow up civilians in shopping malls.” — WSJ May 16, 2012
4 hours ago • Like

Nicole Rogers Lol perfect. A Representative who chooses the opinion of a mainstream media source rather than a federal judge. Anyone else shocked that we are $15 trillion in debt and constant war???
4 hours ago via mobile • Like • 7

Nicole Rogers If someone decides they should not read the pledge for personal reasons then it is their Constitutional right NOT to. You might want to look into what we used to teach our kids to do when the pledge was read. That is, until it became widely unpopular when used by Nazis. Fun history fact 🙂
4 hours ago via mobile • Like • 6

Jeff Miller My opinion on the Amash amendment is recorded long before this article came out. I happen to agree with the logic that you don’t treat foreign terrorists on US soil like petty thieves. I also believe students have the right to say “One Nation Under God” in teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, despite what a single federal judge in California said in his ruling.
3 hours ago • Like

Nicole Rogers I believe they have the right to say it as well, as I myself do. I just also believe in the right NOT to; as you can see from history force of any kind never turns out well…
3 hours ago via mobile • Like • 5

Nicole Rogers And I find your logic flawed based on the generality of the language within the bill. The language which would allow an American citizen to be called a terrorist with no proof to substantiate such a claim and indefinitely detained.
3 hours ago via mobile • Like • 7

Jeff Miller That’s not what the judge said in his ruiling he said that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools violates the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom because the pledge refers to “one Nation under God.”
3 hours ago • Like

Nicole Rogers
And he would be technically correct under the Constitution would he not? “One nation under God” wasn’t even in the original wording, it wasn’t added until 1954. And seeing how we live in such a diverse nation where religion is separate from government; to force someone to say these words would thus be unConstitutional. Take a child raised in a home where the main religion is Buddhism. Is it fair to force this child to comply with the rules of Christianity in a government setting? I personally choose to say “One nation under God” because I choose to live in a life where God is who I answer to. I also see that the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals upheld that it should stay so the federal judges’ ruling was overturned.
2 hours ago • Unlike • 8

Jeff Miller
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 Section 1033 page 359 lines 9-16. I’m not sure how much more specific it can get

9 Nothing in Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note or the National
10 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
11 Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of
12 the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established
13 by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person
14 who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Au
15 thorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
16 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).
2 hours ago • Like

Ajai Dittmar BOOOOOO isn’t this treasonous against the American people? All these lawmakers who swore to uphold the Constitution yet VOTED TO DETAIN AMERICANS without due process should be arrested for voting for it! Don’t worry though, unlike the lawmakers, we the people would WANT YOU to have DUE PROCESS.
2 hours ago • Like • 5

Joe Bouchard Nicole, you rock.
2 hours ago • Unlike • 4

Nicole Rogers So if that language is so clear Jeff Miller, why can’t the FBI director answer the question???

2 hours ago • Unlike • 5

Lauren Curleyhair Jeff, your really horrible at debating. Sucks that the people you are supposed to representing disagree with you, yet you vote how you feel anyway. What a horrible representative.
2 hours ago • Unlike • 4

TJ Riordan
What part of PROTECT & UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION do you not understand Representative? By approving a law that restricts and denies Constitutional Rights to US Citizens…and then voting against the Amendment to correct that violation. TREASON against the PEOPLE.

“The NDAA subjects these individuals to arbitrary detention without trial, denying the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and Sixth Amendment rights to challenge evidence and confront one’s accusers. The NDAA also endangers First and Fourth Amendment rights, because the PATRIOT Act expanded the definition of “material support for terrorism” to include crimes of speech and association even by defendants who neither committed nor ever intended to support violence.”
about an hour ago • Unlike • 3

TJ Riordan
‎”The NDAA is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states that “(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” An essential element of due process in American legal history and common law has been always been the right to trial by jury. Even the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004 ruled that, “Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.” Yet the federal government now claims the authority to send even U.S. citizens to a military prison for an indefinite period of time with neither trial nor charges.

Theoretically, the U.S. Supreme Court will never overturn this law, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional, because a person detained with the provisions in the NDAA might never get a day in court. Thus, the only remaining solution to this grossly un-American legislation is its swift repeal.”
about an hour ago • Unlike • 3

Nicole Rogers Ding ding ding! You are correct Scott 🙂 There is no clarity and the bill is loosely worded on all accounts. The passing of this section of the NDAA was an act of treason against the people. Forefathers are rolling in their graves right now….
about an hour ago • Unlike • 8

Ronnie Traina Nice!!!! Get em’ Nicole!!
about an hour ago • Like • 2

Ajai Dittmar It’s laws like this that cause unrest in this country!
about an hour ago • Like • 2

Lauren Curleyhair Gone to copy and paste something else Jeff?
about an hour ago • Unlike • 3

Brett Klingel Weren’t the founders of this nation, who created Congress, fighting against these same kinds of laws?
about an hour ago • Unlike • 3

Lauren Curleyhair Never sacrifice your liberties for safety. Ever.
58 minutes ago • Unlike • 3

KC Ted You can click Like on my statement if you like
26 minutes ago • Like

Marshall ‘Da Jeenyus’ Culpepper that’s not what the judge said in HIS ruling??? wasn’t the judge a lady???? I’m pretty sure it was.
24 minutes ago • Like

Ajai Dittmar Some people can’t handle the heat! If you can’t handle the heat stay out of the kitchen!
19 minutes ago • Like

Jeff Miller ‎Marshall ‘Da Jeenyus’ Culpepper http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/judges/usdistrict/karlton.htmJudge Lawrence Karlton is a male
15 minutes ago • Like

Jeff Miller
Again, there is nothing “loosely worded” about “Nothing shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States.” The Amash amendment did not protect the rights of American Citizens,those are guaranteed by the Constitution, it would have granted constitutional rights to foreign terrorist who are captured on US soil.
8 minutes ago • Like

Ajai Dittmar Prove it- copy and paste it on this post – please
Unable to post comment. Try Again