Tuesday September 2, 2014
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com
Zip Weather


Weather Forecast
Keizer is a thriving community near Salem, Oregon

 

Dec-25-2011 17:57printcomments

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions.

Salem-News.com

(HELENA) - 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.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens.  Rhodes said:

"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."

Two Medals of Honor - Marine Gen. Smedley Butler

Rhodes noted that:

"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight. "

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:

" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:

”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.


References:

Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"

http://www.facebook.com/...

"Recalling Senators and Congressmen"
http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/...

"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"
http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/...

Special thanks to Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recalls-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas-US-Senate

]

End Israeli apartheid




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Bob January 8, 2012 6:06 am (Pacific time)

You lost me when I saw Daily Kos. Too bad you couldn't use a legitimate source.


Steven T. Evans January 7, 2012 6:28 pm (Pacific time)

You really do not need to recall anybody. The following is legal precedence making the NDAA and probably certain parts of the Patriot Act null and void. Knowledge goes a long way. In Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Marbury was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. Judicial review is now a well settled doctrine.


Karen_Roberts January 4, 2012 11:33 am (Pacific time)

They cannot even arrest a US citizen, unless they really have been part of terrorist attacks, Gee Wiz you guys creep me out, when you see something I do not.(AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.) any such arrest can be over-ridden especially by the constitution. Just wave your constitutional Rights around, IDIOTS!

Editor: SHEEP!

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.


robert January 1, 2012 7:39 am (Pacific time)

Nevada get with it get Harry


robert January 1, 2012 7:45 am (Pacific time)

OK Nevada follow us in MT and go for Harry Reid


Anonymous December 31, 2011 10:46 am (Pacific time)

Why aren't the media outlets covering this? They need to be blitzed. They need to be hacked by Anonymous into running the NDAA story. If the country is not outraged enough for the white house to hear it he will sign this horror.


Rancher2012 December 31, 2011 8:33 am (Pacific time)

Stand Up America! Take the cue from Montana and take your country back before it is gone.


Concerned December 30, 2011 9:18 pm (Pacific time)

Please find the actual text of the final version of the Bill that passed the House and the Senate: Subtitle D—Counterterrorism SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. (f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


Patriot1 December 30, 2011 11:52 am (Pacific time)

The recall petition won't work, these criminals are protected by all the corrupt judges and prosecutors out there. It's high time we the people form citizens criminal tribunals and enforce the laws ourselves, with guns if neccessary. We can form our own courts, complete with our own judges and prosecutors. (No law degree required, just a good understanding of the Constitution.) The list of charges against them would look something like this: 1. Treason 2. Theft by swindle 3. Theft by fraud 4. Globalism (yes, that's a crime!) 5. Counterfeiting (anyone who doesn't move against the Federal Reserve is an accomplice to this crime.) 6. Murder (anyone who lends support to the acts of aggression in foreign countries and bombing of innocent civilians is a murderer) 7. Extortion (anyone who does not move to abolish the IRS is guilty of this crime 8. Racketeering 9. Money laundering 10. Inciting civil unrest and division (pitting racial and religious groups against each other through propaganda) These are just a few of the charges against these criminals. Most of the criminals can be found in the following occupations: 1. Politicians (both parties) 2. Bureaucrats 3. Bankers 4. Corporate CEO's 5. Wall Street parasites 6. Media personnel 7. Lawyers 8. Judges 9. Prosecutors 10. CFR members 11. Trilateralists 12. Bilderbergs 13. Cops and federal agents who don't uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution, who protect the thugs in government instead of upholding the liberties of the people. This also applies to military personnel who are found to be derelict. 14. Gun control advocates These are just a few, there are many more. This is who we target. Patriots in each state need to identify who the criminals and traitors are, then come up with a list of names and addresses. Once we identify them and find out where they live, we got get 'em, try 'em, and hang 'em! Since they don't believe in the Constitution, then we give them no Constitutional rights. Their guilt is a foregone conclusion. Once we eradicate them from our society, then we can go back to the Constitution and freedom, liberty, and justice for all, where the common working man can live in peace and keep the fruits of his labor. That's my solution anyway, for what it's worth.


Patricia December 30, 2011 11:06 am (Pacific time)

I am proud of the State of Montana and I hope that you will reach out to every other state and show them that they need to follow suit.l Apparently it doesn't matter how much advocating against something the public does, no one on either side of the aisle listens. Both parties are headed towards a huge disaster. No one and nothing can help this country unless we go back to God and a healthy majority repent of our evil ways and ask him to heal out land. I would like to say that I am disappointed to see such filthy language by the respondents. My mother-in-law used to say that it shows our ignorance. If we had a good command of the English language we wouldn't have to resort to swearing and filthy language. God Bless You All.


ThePriusOfPaulRevere December 30, 2011 7:47 am (Pacific time)

Montana, you are frickin' awesome! Much respect!


WE THE PEOPLE December 29, 2011 3:16 pm (Pacific time)

Administrative and Judicial Decisions on State Recall Laws Congressional Research Service Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney March 26, 2010 www.crs.gov Greeting Montana, I have enclose several Federal Court cases on Administrative and Judicial Decisions on State Recall Laws, please review this, it is very important before you set your sights on a recall of your Senators. The attorney general of Oregon in 1935 ruled that the state’s recall provisions could not apply to a Member of Congress, who is not actually a state official, but who holds his office pursuant to the United States Constitution and is a federal constitutional officer. The opinion found that such recall provisions would interfere with the Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority over the Administrative and Judicial Decisions on State Recall Laws The attorney general of Oregon in 1935 ruled that the state’s recall provisions could not apply to a Member of Congress, who is not actually a state official, but who holds his office pursuant to the United States Constitution and is a federal constitutional officer. The opinion found that such recall provisions would interfere with the Congress’s exclusive constitutional authority over the elections and qualifications of its own members, noting that the “jurisdiction to determine the right of a representative in Congress to a seat is vested exclusively in the House of Representatives ... [and] a Representative in Congress is not subject to recall by the legal voters of the state or district from which he was elected.” In a similar manner, the attorney general of Louisiana ruled in 2009 that a Member of Congress representing the people of a congressional district in Louisiana could not be recalled under Louisiana law. The attorney general found that the “Constitution does not provide for, nor does it authorize, the recall of United States officials,” that the power to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of the Member’s term is expressly delegated in the “United States Constitution to the respective House of Congress ...,” and thus “the United States Constitution does not provide for any reservation of authority to the States to remove from office congressional officeholders.” The opinion further found that Members of Congress are federal officials, and are not state officers, and thus are not subject to the state law on recall of state public officials. In interpreting a state recall statute, the attorney general of Wisconsin did note in an opinion on May 3, 1979, that an administrative agency, the state election board, upon presentation of a valid petition to recall a Member of Congress under the Wisconsin Constitution, had no authority, in itself, to adjudicate and reject such petition without a ruling from a court. When such matters have on rare occasions generated a ruling from a court, however, the courts which have decided the issue have thus far found that state recall laws are ineffective to override and substitute for the provisions of the United States Constitution concerning the terms of and removal of federal officials such as Members of Congress. A federal court in 1967, for example, dismissed a suit which attempted to compel the Idaho secretary of state to accept petitions recalling Senator Frank Church of Idaho. In the unreported judicial ruling, the court found that Senators are not subject to state recall statutes, and that such a state provision is inconsistent with the provisions of the United States Constitution. Similarly, a state court in Michigan dismissed a petition effort to recall a Member of Congress under that state’s recall statute. Although an administrative entity had earlier approved the language of the recall petition, and despite the express language of the state law, the court granted an injunction against the continuation of the recall effort, finding “that pursuant to the text of Article I of the United States Constitution and by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the recall provisions under Michigan law are ineffective to recall a Member of Congress.” In New Jersey, however, an intermediate appellate state court in 2010 refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of that state’s recall provision, and refused to enjoin a recall effort against a sitting United States Senator, since the recall effort had not at that time garnered sufficient signatures to invoke an election under state law, and thus the court found that the matter was not yet ripe for adjudication. The court in the New Jersey noted that the consequences of invalidating a state constitutional provision “mandates that we ... apply caution and restraint,” and since “there will be, no necessity for our courts to resolve this difficult constitutional issue if the Committee’s petition drive fails to collect the necessary, approximately, 1,300,000 signatures ... we see no urgent reason to now decide the question of invalidity or validity with finality,” and thus “decline at this juncture to find our State constitutional provision and related statute permitting recall of a United States Senator to be unconstitutional. Ladies and Gentlemen: There are three things what WE THE PEOPLE can do to enforce a recall petition and I will get back to you on Friday December 30, 2011 to tell you what there are, you are going to be surprised. Ben Weber for: WE THE PEOPLE


Mike in az December 29, 2011 11:59 am (Pacific time)

Send it to Arizona, Azrepublic sucks. They are Notorious for printing lies and dividing this nation. A racist liberal extreme left rag they are.


Delta Dart guy December 29, 2011 11:03 am (Pacific time)

Tester was sent to D.C. in a feeble attempt to make Baucus look "intelligent", and FAILED big time. Baucus, along with Rehberg, have been, it seems, in D.C. since puberty. They never come back to Montana to "talk" to the people...maybe have a "listening" tour once or twice a year where they meet with only their syncophants collectively...public not invited.


Jeff from Northern CA Coast December 28, 2011 10:31 pm (Pacific time)

THANK YOU MONTANA FOR WAKING UP AND DOING SOMETHING ... IT SEEMS THE REST OF THE WORLD IS ASLEEP???


Donald December 28, 2011 9:27 pm (Pacific time)

Montana proves to be a state that actually cares for its citizens and the United States as a whole. Of course these traitors need ousting. Where is are the rest of the States!!!!!!! Americans are insane to allow this stuff.


Kelly in MT December 28, 2011 8:30 pm (Pacific time)

I agree with Jim about the Rehburg part. Oh yeah, we don't need any more new crack pots moving into Montana, we have enough already. Thank you. Good bye. The voted on bill also had word changes from the original as well.


Munkle December 28, 2011 8:08 pm (Pacific time)

The Constitution is clear that 'all powers not reserved to the federal government are reserved to the people and the state,' unless they are expressly prohibited. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting recall laws. The right to recall is fully provided for in the Constitution, by lack of any "affirmati­ve prohibitio­n" on Tenth Amendment powers reserved "to the states and to the people": This was the Founders' way of assuring that the Constituti­on was to be viewed as a straitjack­et on the government­, not on the people. Recall is fully provided for in the Constituti­on as well as in the Declaratio­n of Independen­ce which, in cases in which the government has become "destructi­ve of these ends" of preserving basic rights, for which it was instituted­, gives the people the "right to alter or abolish" the government­. Previous court decisions have relied on the dubious argument that allowing recall for specific and grave grounds somehow constitute­s changing the "term" of office. But the term stays the same, as the replacemen­t will serve out only the remainder of the term, then face re-electio­n anew, for the same term of six years. And the Idaho court tried to say that introducin­g a recall was a change in "qualifica­tions," clearly absurd since qualificat­ions refers to age, residency, and inhabitanc­y. The court rulings thus far are weak and vulnerable­, and ripe to be revisited. It is inconceiva­ble that the Founders intended congressme­n and senators to be more accountabl­e to colleagues­, who can expel them, than to the very constituen­ts they represent.


Munkle December 28, 2011 7:50 pm (Pacific time)

Jim SAID: December 28, 2011 11:50 am (Pacific time) "This would be more credible if these "oath keepers" also were going after US Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.), who also voted for the same bill (and is running against Tester for the Senate). This looks like a Republican front group to me." Jim, Take as look at the original DailyKos article which has been revised. It now includes a statement by Rhodes the founder of Oath Keepers which reads as follows. link here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate 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." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate


james December 28, 2011 6:39 pm (Pacific time)

I think it's funny that several posters now want to move to Montana. HELLO-Montanans elected these creeps. So lets all live around a bunch of MORONS


RightAngle December 28, 2011 3:49 pm (Pacific time)

Look folks, as in any topic certain elements in society such as dregs to Phd's find comfort in their skim milk patriotism. True America has been in a constant state of dilution from whole milk pure and simple to 1% to 2% to skim etc. These very people sepecially politicians have been allowed to gratify themselves with city, county, state and federal perks even if it means selling this country to the lowest bidder. A parent can teach a child what shame is but if an adult never knows what shame is they will not know remorse.The fact remains, while the cats away, (voters) the cats will play (politicians). Since 1800 apathy among adults have gone epidemic hence society becomes numb from accountability. A politician who does not fear God will not fear their voters. Montanan's have an opportunity to restore this fear and return to whole milk patriotism. Satan will try any/everything to weaken us as a state and nation. I warned you about Baucus in the 90's. Now lets see if you Montanan's put up or shut up. GitRdun! Cowboy Up!


Jim December 28, 2011 11:50 am (Pacific time)

This would be more credible if these "oath keepers" also were going after US Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.), who also voted for the same bill (and is running against Tester for the Senate). This looks like a Republican front group to me.


WE THE PEOPLE December 28, 2011 7:38 am (Pacific time)

Goodmorning to the Great people of Montana. Please take the time to read this Congressional Research Service report. www.crs.gov It may save you a lot of time and energy in your efforts to recall your Senators. God bless you, and your efforts I'll be praying for you and the Great State of Montana
Benny Weber Channing, Michigan For: WE THE PEOPLE

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Recall of Legislators and the Removal of
Members of Congress from Office
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
March 26, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL30016
Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office
Congressional Research Service
Summary: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30016.pdf

 


c. good December 28, 2011 11:13 am (Pacific time)

i wish people were as upset with the citizens united ruling as they are with this. economics is a much more effective route than actual warfare against its citizens.


DillonMT December 28, 2011 7:43 am (Pacific time)

Would've like to've seen some contact info so that other Montanans that read this can connect, sign whatever petition, etc.


James F. Robinson December 28, 2011 7:24 am (Pacific time)

A recall election is locking the barn door after the horse ran off. Nullification seems to me to be the best route


Aaron December 28, 2011 1:09 am (Pacific time)

Nowhere in here does it say how many Montanans are working on this recall. It's probably 2 guys with an Internet connection.


AfricanWarrior December 28, 2011 12:48 am (Pacific time)

My name is Benny It's admirable that you say that you attempted to recall the pathetic losers that represent the people of Michigan in the Senate. However, I would disagree that you tried, instead you gave up without trying based on a very weak set of arguments. The SCOTUS is infamous for over turning former SCOTUS rulings. I not sure which rulings you are referencing or when those rulings were made. What I do see is that you have completely ignored the wording of the 17th Amendment. Secondly, Senators are elected to represent their States, not the Federal Government. The key component of such a case would hinge upon the the Constitutionality of the NDAA amendment itself. A recall vote in noway alters the Senate in performing its duties. It merely replaces Senators based upon the will of their electors, which is clearly defined in the 17th Amendment to be reserved to the electors of the State they represent. Another factor to consider is the simple fact that the SCOTUS, just as the federal government gets its powers from the consent of the states and the people. To deny the people their right to elected representation of choice, is to deny the validity of the Union itself. Amendment XVII The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Dr Bill December 27, 2011 11:25 pm (Pacific time)

Looks like I'm going back to cold, snow country ta pick out ah new weapon.


Betty December 27, 2011 11:14 pm (Pacific time)

Hurrah for Montana. I've talked about moving there often lately. This makes it even more attractive. I was born in Helena and have relatives all over Montana. I'm really proud of them. Keep it up Montana!


Howard T. Lewis III December 27, 2011 8:38 pm (Pacific time)

Anybody who voted and voted for Obama or McCain has left a huge mess for the rest of us to clean up.Such arrogance is about to become a thing of the past.


sandy December 27, 2011 8:00 pm (Pacific time)

walk with along with Jesus with your love trust in him. Don't attend churches they are part of the corpation in government. It's a very personal love just between you and Jesus. Don't listen to churches for they are anti-christian. Everyone standup and fight back.


Deborah December 27, 2011 7:46 pm (Pacific time)

Go Montana!


uka December 27, 2011 6:03 pm (Pacific time)

hey editor you took Jim to task for bringing up gays in Cal. but ...

Editor: You talk to your mother with that mouth?  Your insults mean nothing to me, you are off track anyway.


ALEX December 27, 2011 5:17 pm (Pacific time)

CONGRESS WAS FOOLED -HOODWINKED BY OBAMA-MCCAIN AND LEVIN--THEY SNUCK IN ADDED PASSAGES TO BILL 1867 AT 1480 PAGES--IT ALLOWS ARREST OF ALL AMERICANS WITHOUT CHARGES OR A TRIAL AND INDEF IMPRISONMENT-TREASONOUS


ALEX December 27, 2011 5:14 pm (Pacific time)

CONGRESS DIDNT READ SEN BILL 1867 AT 1480 PAGES WITH ADDED PASSAGES AT 1031-1032-1033 SNUCK IN BY SEN MCCAIN AND SEN LEVIN WITH OBAMA BACKING WHICH ALLOWS ARREST OF ALL AMERICANS WITHOUT CHARGERS OR TRIAL AND INDEF IMPRISONMENT. TREASONOUS ACTION BY OBAMA-MCCAIN-LEVIN--CONGRESS CHARGE THE 3 TRAITORS WITH TREASON.


Nam Marine December 27, 2011 4:30 pm (Pacific time)

I may move to Montana. At least true Americans live there!


HonorGod December 27, 2011 3:34 pm (Pacific time)

I hope you folks can do it.


WE THE PEOPLE December 27, 2011 3:28 pm (Pacific time)

I would like to introduce myself to you; My name is Benny and I have tried to recall Michigan's Carl Levin and Debbie Stabanow. In the spring of 2011 I tried to recalled our two losers form Michigan (Levin and Stabanow) with out vial. After days of research I came across a website www.crs.gov I do not know if you are aware of this, but legislator has attorneys that work for our elected losers that we instilled into office. My personal opinion is that Supreme Court is going to throw it out because of lack of standing. The United States Constitution does provide for nor authorize the recall of United States Senators or any Federal employee by the States only congress has the power to remove. The States Constitutions may have language in there Constitution to recall a Senators, The United States Constitution does not support a recall of its Federal employees, therefore the States Constitutions do not have the power to recall its Senators. And that folks will be the arguments of the Supreme Court - end WE THE PEOPLE As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the states for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the framers and ratifies that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative in Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings, and opinions, indicate that (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each house of Congress as expressly delegated in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the states in the Constitution creating that federal government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual state, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual states never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the Tenth Amendment. Even the dissenters in the Supreme Court decision on the Tenth Amendment and term limits, who would have found a “reserved” authority in the states regarding “qualifications” of Members of Congress, conceded that the exclusive authority to remove a sitting Member is delegated to each house in the expulsion clause of the Constitution, and that with respect to “a power of recall ... the Framers denied to the States [such power] when they specified the terms of Members of Congress.”


Dick McManus December 27, 2011 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

Dick McManus for Congress, D-WA, 2012 for 1st, 2nd, or 10th CD
Democrat, Everett, WA

Editor: Dick, the link didn't seem to work, please feel free to write to our newsroom at tim@salem-news.com

Tim King


Mike in Cali December 27, 2011 1:45 pm (Pacific time)

The Constitution says that Senators are representatives of the State Government and they are to be apointed by the state legislators and can be recalled at any time. The 17th admendment changed that and removed representation for the states which was a fundamental change to the structure of our Constitution. The 17th Amendment was not lawfully ratified and is not law but like the fraudulant 16th is inforcred anyway. Montana should review the facts regarding the 17th, declare it not law, and recall it's Senators and replace them. The US Senate is not the House of Representatives and Senators should not be elected by any popular vote. This action would really stir things up as it would become aparent that the entire Senate could be recalled once the truth was known.


Jim December 27, 2011 1:29 pm (Pacific time)

To bad calif is so stupid nothing but gays and idiots in this gov.

Editor: Is your homophobia really necessary?  I've never met anyone who would say such a thing that wasn't also gay, just deal with it.


Timothy R. Christman December 27, 2011 7:25 am (Pacific time)

ALL 86 who voted aye are treasonous (they are domestic criminals although most of them are in Israeli's back pocket) and should be treated thusly, hanged.


Laurie McDonald December 27, 2011 12:37 pm (Pacific time)

Thank you Montana throw those bastards out... and please don't elect men who disregard the Constitution... we must be aware of the people we elect and what they stand for and vote for,


Go Montana Patriots! December 27, 2011 12:21 pm (Pacific time)

They need to post donation info and this effort needs to go NATIONAL. Let the westerners lead the way- the men out here wont do it... Signed, Anti-East Coast wusses


Dave December 27, 2011 11:46 am (Pacific time)

Interesting that congress puts up NO partisan barriers among themselves when it comes to the wholesale decimation of our rights. The two party system is a delusion.


cjmartel December 27, 2011 11:31 am (Pacific time)

Way to go Montana!! Finally, a state that is going to lead the nation in defeating this abomination!


bob sargent December 27, 2011 11:25 am (Pacific time)

thanks montana. will work on colo. brsargent@copper.net


Mikey is an idiot December 27, 2011 11:18 am (Pacific time)

Mikey, read the bill and if you do not understand "Enemies foreign or domestic" and whatever the President defines the detainees status is. A doestic enemy can be anyone who speaks out against the Govt. Wake up people, they do not have our interests in mind.


Joe December 27, 2011 11:01 am (Pacific time)

I was born and raised in Montana, lets show these government big-wigs you don't F- with us.


Amanda December 27, 2011 10:54 am (Pacific time)

Re: "It doesn't say that anywhere; that doesn't count; that's illegal" Be aware that an amendment to the legislation meant to specifically clarify "No we can't detain US citizens" in very clear language was voted down by the congress. The language of that amendment can be found here: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FeinsteinAmendment2USCitizenBan.pdf The voting record of the elected officials who voted against adding that clarifying language can be found here: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/214 Who votes AGAINST clarifying language regarding citizen's rights, I mean really?


WYOMING MIKE December 27, 2011 10:07 am (Pacific time)

God Bless Montana!!! Our senators are traitors too, but we apparently have no recourse here.


Ora.Mi December 27, 2011 10:04 am (Pacific time)

Way to go Montana. home of epic bad asses. I hope cali is to follow


Lili December 27, 2011 9:57 am (Pacific time)

As Montana is categorically abusively racist,sexist, and homophobic they haven't changed at all but in this one political instance Montana is AWESOME! Californians(and all other states) you should be ashamed that you haven't done the same.


Mark December 27, 2011 9:49 am (Pacific time)

Thanks for standing up Montana. They as all the others should be tried for treason.


Anonymous December 27, 2011 9:47 am (Pacific time)

@-Mikey December 26, 2011 12:49 pm Please show me where in the Bill Of Rights where Congress is Allowed to Concede their Individual Powers of Declaring War against any Nation Group or Individual when such powers are Only Delegated to Congress and said Powers are Only to be delegated to them by the Citizens of their Home States. Regardless of what the NDAA might say, Congress has Violated the Bill of Rights BY Conceding their Power to /of control the Executive Branch. For the sake of America, I hope "Some" learn to Read the Unwritten Results of how the Elected Reps are "Nudging" America into the Roman Empire.


FireMall December 27, 2011 9:33 am (Pacific time)

Let me see if this makes sense. A state Senator "IS" a State Representative , Elected By the Citizens of the Individual Sovereign "Republic" States. The State Elected officials are elected to serve the Citizens of their Home State in a Federal setting. Show me One Representative, Senator that was elected by a Federal Election. Every Constitutional State is Demanded to be represented by their Own Elected Reps. Thus the argument coming from the Federal Level is an Act of Treason , plain and simple. Not only should the Congress "Members" that breeched their Oath and violated the Bill of Rights be recalled , impeached so should the Traitors in the Executive Branch that "Were' elected by All Americans via the Federal elections.


t bagg December 27, 2011 9:33 am (Pacific time)

I read that the bill passed 93-7. Not 86-14. I guess it doesn't really matter, it is what they passed that matters, but still, I am curious now.


Ron Kisiel December 27, 2011 9:23 am (Pacific time)

Another reason to vote Ron Paul. Newt would move the U.S. embassy in Israel 2 hours after being sworn in. Paul would cancel that and other bills passed by the traitors on his first day or asap. Hopefully also jail all those that voted for these bills before it is cancelled to give them a taste of their deeds. If Ron Paul did that the World would see the United States was waking up and will be a great country again.


The Tinker December 27, 2011 9:21 am (Pacific time)

You don't "win" the Medal of Honor. War is not a contest, as some would believe. The Medal is "awarded" to those who did what they saw needed doing. If we don't do what "needs doing"...we are cowards.


Richard Kellar December 27, 2011 8:09 am (Pacific time)

Thank God and good men and a State that cares. I will give part of my SS check to support this group. You people make me PROUD.


Op3thian December 27, 2011 8:04 am (Pacific time)

Norton you are CLUELESS! I HAVE READ THE BILL, and it does indeed say they can DETAIN AMERICANS... you have to look at the slippery language in the bill... My senator Udall wasn't writing an amendment to the damn thing for no reason!!! He was one of the main people warning us that the language in the bill did call for detain of U.S. Citizens, but after his amendment got shot down he still knuckled under and voted for the bill and has written to me with his excuses why.... Apparently YOU are the one who "can't read"


Frank December 27, 2011 7:20 am (Pacific time)

Way to go Montana. My wife was born there, guess it's a special place for more than one reason.


President Thomas Jefferson December 27, 2011 6:30 am (Pacific time)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." "Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."


President Thomas Jefferson December 27, 2011 6:29 am (Pacific time)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." "Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."


timma December 27, 2011 4:45 am (Pacific time)

To the Congresspeople and Senators who passed this legislation: Think of how nice and polite we, as Americans, are right now: All we want for your extorted vote is for you to go home, leave, and never come back; one day soon we won't be so friendly, and, hypothetically, when that time comes your son and daughters will no longer have mothers and fathers.


Riquin December 27, 2011 2:58 am (Pacific time)

I wonder if the people of Montana understand the repercussions of their actions. If they are successful there will be thousands, if not millions, of people wanting to move to that State.


Mike December 27, 2011 1:39 am (Pacific time)

BRAVO Montana!! How proud I am of you guys, and ashamed that North Carolina hasn't the integrity, gumption and lack of corruption to do the same... Semper Fi!


Tomas Estrada-Palma December 27, 2011 12:17 am (Pacific time)

Hip hip hurray for the Montanans! May your removal of the twin traitors go smoothly.


dan December 26, 2011 11:36 pm (Pacific time)

its time the real amercans start doing the right thing like montana . as real amercans, we like to enjoy are right. sadly its seem like some amercans are enjoying tacking it away


norton December 26, 2011 10:30 pm (Pacific time)

I guess Montanans don't know how to read or don't bother to read. There is NOTHING in the NDAA that states US citizens can be infinitely detained with out trial or legal counsel. There is NOTHING that counters the Bill or Rights and, if it did, it would NOT stand up in the courts. The Patriot Act does much more to stifle rights than this act. I listened to all this internet crap until I took the time to actually READ the bill. You all should do the same. To react like you are WITHOUT reading it makes you all look like a bunch of inbred imbeciles! READ PEOPLE! I feel you are all falling into a false flag. Getting all up in arms over something which does NOTHING that you say it does. That's irrational and if any unrest or, God forbid, any violent action occurs over this, the government will have every right to arrest and charge those that are causing the violence. Think people, before you mount an insurrection, you better have the truth on your side. READ, dammit, and quit REACTING to false assumptions.


Jeremy1977 December 26, 2011 10:18 pm (Pacific time)

Once recalled, they should be tried for treason, proven guilty, and executed by public hanging. Go get em Montana!


Frank December 26, 2011 8:17 pm (Pacific time)

To my home state of Virginia, I am ashamed of you for not doing what Montana is doing - semper fi.


Lo Phatt December 26, 2011 7:48 pm (Pacific time)

You guys are awesome! Where's the tar and the pillows? Make examples of 'em and the rest of the rats will scurry out of town.


JW December 26, 2011 7:38 pm (Pacific time)

Mikey, like you, I've been trying to find where it says that, and I cannot, nor can I find anyone who can show me when I ask, just like you have done. In short, it don't exist. There's no doubt in my mind that this administration and it's cronies are up to pushing for stuff like that, but, it ain't in the NDAA!

On the contrary, see Section 1021: www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540 (e) is designed to fool people into thinking US citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial: (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. BUT (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The existing law that allows military authority (Public Law 107-40 Authorization for Use of Military Force (cited above in the NDAA)). "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..." www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm THEY EVEN GAVE THEMSELVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS BY TRANSFERING YOU TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHERE YOU CAN BE TORTURED: (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. 


SEND IT TO ARIZONA December 26, 2011 7:26 pm (Pacific time)

newstips@arizonarepublic.com


LESLIE ROBERTS December 26, 2011 7:12 pm (Pacific time)

LET'S CLEAN HOUSE and SENATE


Anonymous December 26, 2011 7:02 pm (Pacific time)

Just read this in Des Moines Iowa I am proud of you guys also. We are holding the first Iowa Peoples Occupy the Caucuses this week. Keep fightin its our country.


Thomas December 26, 2011 6:52 pm (Pacific time)

Ron Paul 2012!


Kyle December 26, 2011 6:15 pm (Pacific time)

Proud to be from Montana! What the press now needs is to help citizens get involved!


Dale December 26, 2011 6:03 pm (Pacific time)

WAY TO GO MONTANA!! MY FUTURE HOME?


priceless22 December 26, 2011 5:57 pm (Pacific time)

I want to move to Montana! Senator Lindsey Graham the traitor ..is my Senator. and Rep Tim Scott is my Congressional Rep..HE voted for it too. Since I cannot get recall in my state...I need to save my pennies and move to Montana!


caviar emptor December 26, 2011 5:37 pm (Pacific time)

Mikey, See Section 1021:

www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540

(e) is designed to fool people into thinking US citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial:
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

BUT
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The existing law that allows military authority (Public Law 107-40 Authorization for Use of Military Force (cited above in the NDAA)).

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..."

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

THEY EVEN GAVE THEMSELVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS BY TRANSFERING YOU TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHERE YOU CAN BE TORTURED:

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

More discussion:
www.zerohedge.com/contributed/new-bill-authorizes-rendition-american-citizens-living-within-united-states-other-countr?utm_source=feedburnerandutm_medium=feedandutm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

In the NDAA, they spell out what they ridiculously claim is "necessary and appropriate force," e.g. indefinite detainment without trial.

 

EDITOR: Thanks for the great breakdown. Mikey probably really appreciates it too! 


Garey December 26, 2011 5:24 pm (Pacific time)

Patriots are appearing out of the woodwork; coast to coast. The shit is about to hit the fan. One can only hope for an improvement to our nation. There are a lot of brain-washed fools out there. Rumour has it a good supply of popcorn may come in handy.


karen December 26, 2011 3:34 pm (Pacific time)

I Am so proud to have been born in Montana


Elias Alias December 26, 2011 2:17 pm (Pacific time)

Montana Oath Keepers is fully signed onto this drive to recall. Thank you, William Crane and Stewart Rhodes.
Salute!
Elias Alias


Robert Moreno December 26, 2011 2:12 pm (Pacific time)

The Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land, Article VI, paragraph 2. All statutes and laws enacted by Congress must be in harmony with the Constitution. Any statute or law enacted by Congress that is in contradiction or disharmony with the Constitution is null and void from the beginning. It creates no duties, creates no rights, imposes no obligation or duties upon any Citizen of the United States of America. It is as if it never existed. Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court decision, 1801


caviar emptor December 26, 2011 2:06 pm (Pacific time)

They will try to end run the 6th by saying it is only valid where there is a prosecution and since you are detained without prosecution there is no trial at all.


caviar emptor December 26, 2011 2:06 pm (Pacific time)

They will try to end run the 6th by saying it is only valid where there is a prosecution and since you are detained without prosecution there is no trial at all.


Mike December 26, 2011 1:52 pm (Pacific time)

Sort girl, we ate not a democracy. Educate yourself. The united states of America is a republic. Have you ever hear or recited the pledge of allegiance? "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Do you hear anything about democracy in there? I don't. You won't find anything about democracy in the constitution either. Under a democracy you have less rights, less say, less freedom. Democracy is a form of monarchy where officials are appointed or inherit their powers. We are not like that, in the USA the citizens elect officials to represent them. Please stop listening to mainstream media who are either too stupid, or paid to spread lies.


Mikey December 26, 2011 12:49 pm (Pacific time)

Please show me where in H.R. 2647-16 (the approved bill by Congress and Senate) it says that citizens may be held indefinitely.

<b>EDITOR: US citizens and anyone suspected of a crime against America can be sent all over the world. Under the legislation, the president has the power to transfer suspected terrorists "to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."   David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said this was an authority that the president has had before, but only under the new NDAA is the legislation endorsed and insured that it could be applied to Americans.</B> 


Zorrogirl December 26, 2011 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

Regardless of party, any Congressman or Senator that voted for this bill should be recalled. This kind of thing cannot be tolerated or the terrorists have won and our democracy is lost.


Charles Ulysses Feney December 26, 2011 12:00 pm (Pacific time)

Why isn't Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg also being recalled for his support of the House version of the NDAA?? Republican politics?


yes!! December 26, 2011 11:55 am (Pacific time)

it's about time...these corporate shills have had their way too long...kick them out!!


Mike December 26, 2011 11:44 am (Pacific time)

I encourage every US citizen to fight back against these tyrants. Find out their home address and go there and confront them. These tyrants are penning such legislation because they are not afraid of the outcome of their actions. They figure people will just complain on the I ternet or call them and moan. They feel that's worth it, no big deal. However, if angry citizens start showing at their doorstep during dinner time, they may start to sweat a bit. Even more so if you are visibly armed and ready to die for your freedom, rights, and liberty. When they take everything, the fear of dying disappears.


Brandt Hardin December 26, 2011 10:59 am (Pacific time)

The NDAA only goes to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and torture dissidents without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society-of-fear-ten-years.html


George December 26, 2011 10:58 am (Pacific time)

It is time for people to gather arms and eliminate the threat of government on the people. They have officially and clearly declared war against the American people. Time to eliminate the threat.


GreenWhatElse December 26, 2011 9:26 am (Pacific time)

We need to get *all* of the Christian terrorists, war criminals, and traitors in Washington as well as their Wall Street masters dragged out in to the streets for fair trials. Merely impeaching these shitting traitors and releasing them back in among the rest of us is why we're a nation run by corporate fascists. The criminals and the traitors know they get away with anything with zero punishment.


HumbleOpinion December 26, 2011 8:47 am (Pacific time)

BRAVO, Montana!!!!


Sharon December 26, 2011 6:52 am (Pacific time)

I am so proud of the people in Montana for taking a stand against a treasonous Congress who are trying to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights. God bless you. You are American patriots!!


Sherry December 26, 2011 6:50 am (Pacific time)

I am so proud of the people of Montana because they believe in our US Constitution and they are standing up to an unconstitutional law voted on by treasonous members of Congress who have turned their backs on the American people. God bless them. You are American patriots!!


Jimmy December 25, 2011 6:56 pm (Pacific time)

Looks like I just found a place to retire!

[Return to Top]
©2014 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.
comments powered by Disqus


Articles for December 24, 2011 | Articles for December 25, 2011 | Articles for December 26, 2011
Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar




Your customers are looking: Advertise on Salem-News.com!

Use PayPal to
support
Salem-News.com: