Missouri Politicians Set Stage for Gun Confiscation

Police confiscate guns

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

February 16, 2013

Recently it seems Missouri politicians have been willing to tackle some very tough but important issues within legislation. Although not perfect, we have bills that attempt to resist the NDAA and warrantless spying by drones on the state level. But with every small victory or progress comes with them more concerns about the condition of our civil rights. One more controversy that we have to keep a close eye on is the legislation sponsored by Rep. Rory Ellinger called HB 545.

Ellinger, along with his cosponsors Representatives Schupp, McNeil, and Walton Gray, have presented an amendment to Chapter 571 of the RSMo. HB 545 essentially puts a ban on “assault weapons” which is not a surprise but their definition of such weapons is even more concerning. This bill doesn’t simply want to ban “assault rifles” like an AR-15, its language clearly includes shotguns and handguns that are able to accept a magazine of more than 10 rounds.

To make matters worse, the bill also does not allow for any “assault weapons” acquired before it becomes law to be grandfathered in. The only solutions it gives are for the owner to remove their gun and high capacity magazines out of state, render the weapon inoperable, or turn the firearm over to the police. Legislation also gives such owners 90 days from the effective date to do one of the three options before they would be in violation of the law. Did I forget to mention that it has a felony charge attached to it?

While the Democrats are certainly the source for such a ridiculous bill, we should not assume that the Republicans are going to come out strong against this legislation. Although House Speaker Tim Jones says he’s committed to protecting the Second Amendment we must hold both parties feet to the fire. The NRA came out recently under their Institute for Legislative Action and said, “Compelling law-abiding citizens to surrender their firearms and magazines is unconstitutional, wrong and another failed attempt to reduce crime… HB 545 would only affect the lawful, while ignoring the actual problem of violent criminals who misuse firearms.”

Of course, there are others that are skeptical about the implementation of this bill. The questions arise as to who would actually follow one of the three steps and would local law enforcement confiscate guns if further action was needed. The answer to both questions is quite simple and stems from a similar logic. People who follow the solutions of HB 545 will be law-abiding citizens who in their naivety think the government knows best. While police officers, in reaction to civil disobedience, will probably go along with an Executive Order by Gov. Jay Nixon or Pres. Obama to quell dissent. However, I do realize that many police officers and even military have stated that they will not go door-to-door confiscation of guns. Let’s just hope that philosophy holds strong when the threat of losing their job or imprisonment becomes a reality.

It is my belief that it is our responsibility to make sure those who supposedly represent us submit to our will. It is also my opinion that we as a society cannot fully depend on public servants to protect us or even resist larger institutions. That is our job. With that being said, I want to challenge local grassroots efforts to focus in on HB 545. The best thing you can do right now without leaving your residence is call the office of Gov. Jay Nixon (573-751-3222) and tell him to renounce this bill. Apparently, according to his secretary, they are keeping count of whether or not the public is for this legislation.

Most importantly, as a concerned citizen, I ask that you also contact your State Representative at573-751-2000 and tell them to reject HB 545 or any new gun control legislation. If you do not know who your State Representative is please click here and look them up by district. Furthermore, as a measure of chastisement, I ask that you contact the sponsor and cosponsors of this bill.

State to them your disapproval of HB 545 and tell them to discontinue any efforts for further restrictions or gun bans. It is important that you are respectful and do not make any violent threats because the latter only hurts our credibility. A final note for any activists that are interested in making calls or sending emails but live out of state, you are also welcome to contact our Missouri State Representatives and express your disgust. There is no need to tell them what state you’re from and it is encouraged not to tell them. For those that are interested in getting out and making your presence known I suggest going down to Jefferson City, MO at the Capitol building, in an organized way, and stage a protest or demonstration.

Missouri Anti-Drone Bill Lacks Teeth

Drone Strike Coming to a City Near You!

Drone Strike Coming to a City Near You!

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

February 8, 2013

Like so much legislation being proposed or passed lately we see the gravitation towards “safe” language within these bills. Just take for example the so-called “anti-NDAA” legislation, HB 57, initially we wrote that it would certainly outlaw indefinite detention of Missouri citizens. In a matter of a week or two, P.A.N.D.A., one of the largest organizations against the NDAA spoke out against it saying that the bill was nothing more than “fluff”. What was their reason for saying such a thing? As Heather Cottner, the Missouri State Coordinator for P.A.N.D.A., explained that the organization’s legal team reviewed the language within the bill and determined that any shrewd politician or lawyer could easily get around what the legislation claims to be outlawing.

This controversy provides the context in how one should view legislation being presented at the local level. With that being said, we should be circumspect about Rep. Casey Guernsey’s HB 46 “Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act”. In a nutshell his bill only outlaws “unwarranted” spying from any person or State Department and in no way protects citizens from law enforcement. A couple of things come to mind when I read this bill:

  • It only seems to outlaw the use of drones against citizens without authorization by a magistrate. In other words, Federal agencies and local police can still use drones against the public as long as they and the magistrate believe there is a just cause. The language in this bill does nothing to protect the citizens from other potential actions that various UAVs are capable of. Furthermore, regarding warrants, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have drastically expanded upon what is deemed as “suspicious activity” thus giving them just cause to target almost anyone for the slightest infraction. Another aspect that should be pondered is that many judges these days don’t resist much when it comes to warrants. Unfortunately, unless it’s something bizarre, the judge will usually side with Feds or the police and issue the authorization.
  • This bill could also be used to justify the outlawing of drones for private use amongst hobbyists and farmers. The main reason why this option could be on the table in the future is a simple fact that the Federal agencies and local police have to have warrants to use them. This could lead to the line of thought “if the government needs permission, why not the people?” They could easily create a registry for private UAV owners and like gun registration; the state could regulate who doesn’t get to operate drones according to whatever vague standard they put in place. All the government needs is a few extreme examples of citizens improperly using their drone and legislation or an amendment could be made to restrict or outlaw them all together for the public. Presently, the FAA has little regulation on private use of drones, as long as the UAV is flying under “400 feet”, maintains a “pilot in control”, and stays away from “built up areas”.
  • HB 46 creates penalties for illegal UAV usage by Federal agencies and law enforcement. It also makes any evidence obtained illegally inadmissible in court while making it easier to file a lawsuit against violators. Initially it sounds great but my concern would be the lack of provision if the tables were turned and a privately owned drone accidentally violated a law that was originally for the Feds and police. In my opinion if one is going to create a bill, they must give some forethought as to how the language could be utilized by politicians (with less than innocent motives) beyond the original intent. Basically critically look at you own legislation and see if there are any dangerous loopholes.

Clearly Rep. Guernsey believes HB 46 solves the problem of illegal use of drones by big brother. It is apparent by a recent statement when he said, “Without legislation, Missouri could become a police state with overt surveillance as drone technology becomes cheaper.” The Representative sounds great on the surface but again I believe this is another bill that has little protection due to its language and omission of other important issues surrounding drone technology.

Gary Brunk, local executive director for the ACLU, seems to think that the bill is sufficient. He said, “As drones become less expensive, our fear is that the police and other agencies could use them or fishing expeditions that infringe on an individual’s right to privacy…This bill is simply common sense regulation.” As Mr. Brunk’s statement reveals the main focus of the organization on the issue of drones is privacy. A question I would ask is why not work with politicians on the state and Federal levels to create a comprehensive bill that addresses all the issues that apply to drones. Why can’t we have “common sense” laws against using weaponized UAVs for American citizens?

Maybe their angle is to slowly implement these measures throughout several bills so that these issues can be addressed individually so the establishment doesn’t feel threatened. Hopefully this is not one of those deals where lawmakers throw out a bone to satiate activists so they will shut their mouths. If Rep. Guernsey’s motives are pure, then he should consider several options: 1) Tightening up the language in the bill; 2) Amending problematic sections within the bill; or 3) Create new bill altogether that addresses in a more complete manner the potential civil rights violations from the utilization of drones by the state.

I think that it is imperative that Guernsey finishes the job he started and either shores up the current bill he has put forth or scrap HB 46. Regardless of what option is chosen, it should take a tougher stance against drones. The reader may wonder why citizens should not be restricted from using private UAVs, while Federal agencies and police departments should have more regulations in their utilization. The answer is simple; most private citizens that own drones have them for a hobby or are employed for agricultural or environmental tasks. Whereas, the government owns them to further their surveillance grid and create an atmosphere of fear as a method of control. The state’s use of drones is nothing more than aggression while the public’s use is amicable. See the difference?

St. Louis Residents: Still Under the Shadow of the Manhattan Project

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 29, 2013

Back in September I filed a report on the research of a local sociologist named Lisa Martino-Taylor. Through FOIA requests she discovered in the early 50s and mid-60s that black residents in St. Louis, MO living in the Pruett-Igoe Complex were being sprayed with radiologicals without their consent. Within her findings she discovered that there was a direct correlation between the military, US Radium, and the Manhattan Project. The specific sub-branch of these experiments was the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition; which was in operation here locally.

A couple weeks after publishing my article, a local activist got me in contact with an internet group called “Coldwater Creek – Just the Facts Please” where I met a member named Jenell Wright. Through a series of messages and studying several notes and documents within the group I saw a connection with the secret experiments being conducted on low income families within the city and the disease clusters in the county.

Despite seeing a connection between Martino-Taylor’s research and the Coldwater Creek’s collection of data, I wanted to attend a public meeting on this local problem. Meanwhile, as I compared historical resources, I observed that after various experiments were conducted (including the ones done on the Pruett-Igoe Complex) by the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition, the radioactive waste was sent to be stored and dried out in a facility off of Latty Avenue. Early on the people processing this waste didn’t even wear protective gear and it wasn’t until while later that the federal government came in and changed their approach.

By the early 70s the government decided the best way to dispose of the radioactive waste (composed of plutonium, uranium, and thorium) was to illegally dump it in the Missouri River floodplain and similar sites that would later leach into the water supply. They provided no protective barrier from the waist to the groundwater and in most cases it was just on the surface. As it stands now, the third site is buried under a fairly shallow layer of dirt and guarded by a fence that could easily be scaled by anybody determined to get inside.

Since that time, many people who were unaware of such operations developed residential areas around the radiological sites. Still others were exposed in a more indirect way by the waste being carried through the air and water to more remote places. In 1993 some of the areas would experience one of the worst floods in St. Louis history and pictures during that time from Latty Avenue prove that the waters were clearly exposed to radiologicals.

The early 90s would also be a time of a somewhat quiet cover-up of the contaminated areas. In fact, I heard at the Coldwater Creek St. Louis oversight committee meeting on November 8, 2012 a Florissant resident relayed a story about men in hazmat suits covering all the canals with concrete. The very presence of men with suits laying concrete in areas the government knew were exposed to waste can only lead one to be more suspicious of such activities.

As a result of a half century of exposing people to nuclear waste, many people from these areas either know people who are sick or have died from rare cancers. Many of these people are sick or dying themselves. But it’s not just one in 1 million cancers that people are affected by but multiple cases of lupus on the same block, many cases of conjoined twins, and other neurological issues being recorded in clusters. A map developed by members of the “Coldwater Creek – Just the Facts Please” group shows that these clusters are indeed downstream from the radiological sites.

Moving forward to a more recent meeting on January 17, 2013 the EPA wanted to bring a presentation to the people of Bridgeton, MO concerning the West Lake landfill (i.e. the third site). After years of cleaning up the other two radiological sites, their solution to the people of Bridgeton was to merely “cap” the landfill. The presentation that the EPA brought forth was clearly a whitewash and the nearly 300 people that attended knew it was as well. In fact, I believe that this was the whole point of downplaying the site so they could execute a “cheap” solution.

I must admit that I was pretty impressed with how the public addressed the EPA in the open mic session. Ed Smith, Safe Energy Director at MCE, gave a salient case against Dan Gravatt’s explanation of the data. Gravatt, by the way is the Remedial Project Manager of the EPA who presented the agencies findings. Similarly, Dr. Bob Criss, who is a professor at Washington University specializing in geochemistry and the Missouri River, debunked the EPA’s 45 minute presentation in a matter of 7. I was also inspired by the Teamsters and knowledgeable residents of St. Louis County who have been affected by the nuclear waste. They all came out strong and well informed on the specific subject that they addressed towards the EPA.

Unfortunately the fight for a clean environment and compensation for the victims, at the time of this writing, is still ongoing. I don’t feel that I have gave this subject the attention it needs but I hope the reader will research this further and get involved no matter what part of St. Louis you live in. My goal is to continue to go to these meetings, make further connections with other cases, and expose the government for who they really are. I know as more attention is brought to this issue, the more heat will be applied to them. Despite the federal government’s ever encroaching power, the people of this country still have the ability push back if we desire to do so.

St. Louis Venerates Obama Over MLK

"Giving honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama" - Jamie Foxx

“Giving honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama” – Jamie Foxx

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 23, 2013

Initially I hadn’t planned on writing a piece concerning this year’s Martin Luther King Jr. March. But after a few days of thinking about the ridiculousness of our local organizers I felt that something had to be said. It’s really a shame that Democratic operatives have co-opted the holiday committee for MLK because this should be a day without “party lines”. After all, Dr. King was not a big proponent of the left-right paradigm.

In fact, at one point he said, “I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either.” With that being said, one might think that the committee would be nonpartisan. But apparently this is not so (or at least it is not a concern of the organizers). The reader will see shortly why I think there was a bias within the committee that originated from political elements.

This year, the Inauguration Day fell on the same date that we observe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. The holiday committee decided that since Dr. King’s birthday fell on Pres. Obama’s Inauguration Day, they would combine the festivities. While I believe that some on the committee genuinely thought this was a good idea, clearly there wasn’t much thought put into it.

A couple of days before the march I got word of what the organizers had planned to do. I was a little puzzled by this decision because of what I knew about Dr. King’s stance on war as opposed to the president’s actions the last four years. The whole time I couldn’t stop thinking, “If MLK were alive today, would he support the president’s policies concerning drone strikes, foreign intervention, and indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial or jury?” But at the end of the day I tried to give the organizers the benefit of the doubt and chalk it off as them wanting to honor two influential men of color.

I discussed this with a local activist and rapper named Rev Dellic, who also had the same concerns. Despite my reservations about the inauguration component, I decided to join with local activists to commemorate Dr. King. Admittedly a few of us also wanted to strike up conversations with Obama supporters to see what their thoughts were on the comparisons of these two men.

Rev and I decided that we would march with signs around our necks that read, “MLK had a dream…What is Obama’s dream?” We decided the best approach would be to pose a somewhat simple and nonthreatening question to open up dialogue.

As I made my way to the Old Courthouse, I hadn’t even gotten across the street to where everyone was meeting for the march, when my attention was immediately brought to a 10-12 foot tall Obama puppet standing with outstretched hands behind the ROTC choir. Besides the irony of the giant puppet, I found the whole situation awkward. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that Obama was the predominant character despite the status of MLK.

At any rate, once we got over to the site of where the march would begin, we proceeded to put on our signs. Overall we had a 95% positive reception with a few double takes and a couple snide remarks. But by and large most people were indifferent to the question posed. To those that responded negatively or somewhat perturbed, they seemed to be going more on their emotions or the perception that we may give wearing a political sign at such an occasion. Of course the latter response is silly since the Democrats already politicized MLK Day by combining the inauguration with it.

One self-proclaimed “Anarchist” named James rode over on his bike to henpeck us on why these signs were inappropriate and polarizing towards nonwhites. His arguments weren’t totally illogical and he wasn’t being a jerk, however he was worried more about his agenda to proselytize African-Americans to Anarchism then our right to freely express ourselves. He also made this wild assumption that because some of us were white that we had no connection to the black community here in St. Louis. I couldn’t help but laugh on the inside when he said this.

While I get being sensitive to the culture of others, I don’t buy into the psychology of “white guilt”. My personal belief is that your motive for helping oppressed peoples should not come from a place of making penitence but out of love and the brotherhood of man. Needless to say James failed to convince us to remove the signs but he did successfully remind us that even some in the activist community censor themselves according to the other parties’ color of skin.

Another gentleman that was a little annoyed by our signs, got in my face and asked what I meant by the statement being made. I was a little caught off guard by his aggression but I proceeded to explain my position. Unfortunately, like I have to do every time I discuss Pres. Obama, I had to preface my argument by saying that the problem is his policies and not his hue. Once I got past the opening spiel, I told him that I believed that if Dr. King were alive today he would have denounced the president’s actions against foreign countries and the continuance of tyrannical “Bushian” policies.

This gentleman actually looked at me, with a straight face, and said, “It seems like we’re living in the past…” He also took issue with the sign and tried to charge us with not being forthright by simply posing a question. The guy said it was disingenuous and that “Obama is about peace because he brought the soldiers home from Iraq.” He further hashed out his argument by saying that MLK was against the Vietnam War but that this was a different time period altogether. The gentleman then attempted to counter my mention of the murderous drone strikes by saying, “France has taken over that.”

Defying logic and facts, this guy waved off the killing of women and children (that the president signed off on) by playing political hot potato and essentially telling us that we need to evolve on our views of foreign intervention. After he was done I started to note a few things that he seemed to be brushing aside but before I could say another sentence, he literally ran away like a cartoon character out of Looney Tunes.

Fact of the matter is, this man was a diehard Democrat and an Obama sycophant, who when Bush was in office opposed war and surely cried aloud about the civil rights violations of Gitmo prisoners. But now that he has someone that “looks” like him, he feels comfortable in playing identity politics (a charge that Dems attempt to put on the majority of whites on the right). Aside from the hypocrisy, he tried to obfuscate the truth.

It is inaccurate to say that America does not have “boots on the ground” in Iraq. We are still meddling in that country through private mercenary groups like Blackwater; which changed its name from XE to Academi.  Furthermore, as far as I know, the United States is still in full command over drone strikes in Pakistan and is waging other proxy wars in the Middle East and Africa. I haven’t the slightest clue where he got that France is now the sole villain in droning innocents.

Continuing on, a more peculiar moment was when we were approached by college students from UMSL that had no idea what the march was about. They said to us that their instructor told them to meet down at the Old Courthouse for a class assignment but didn’t tell them what the event was about. Although I thought this was incredible that they were oblivious to MLK Day and the presidential inauguration, I definitely could see how they could be confused considering all the mixed messages.

This confusion leads into the center of mine and other’s frustration with how this event was handled. It is my opinion that the two events should not have been combined or there should have been a distinction made. It seemed to run altogether and quite frankly Obama was the center of attention despite later marching for Dr. King. I can’t speak for everyone there but the Obama worship was creepy just as it was in DC. I was kind of expecting for people to form lines and patterns for their dictator. But I guess we’re not there yet.

H.B.57 Will Outlaw the NDAA in Missouri

Will history repeat itself?

Will history repeat itself?

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 12, 2013

As we reported yesterday, P.A.N.D.A. founder Dan Johnson, contacted me late Thursday night. He alerted me to a new bill that had been submitted a few weeks ago. I then contacted Heather Cottner, who is P.A.N.D.A.’s new State Coordinator for Missouri, to get further details and to see what her strategy was to get this legislation signed into law.

The bill, which at the time of this writing has no scheduled hearing, was sponsored by Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick and cosponsored by Rep. Rocky Miller and Rep. Paul Curtman. At its most basic level House Bill 57 (HB 57), hinges on the 10th amendment and state’s rights. The sponsors of this bill aim to reestablish Missouri’s state rights over the federal government and to outlaw indefinite detention of its citizens.

It also slaps the executive branch right in the face by nullifying 50 USC Section 1541 (concerning the War Powers Resolution) that illegally gives the president power to declare war over Congress.  The Unlawful Detention of Citizens Bill (i.e. MO HB-57) states:

“Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no state agency, political subdivision, employee of such State agency or political subdivision acting in his or her official capacity, or member of the Missouri National Guard on officials state duty, shall knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention of any citizen pursuant to 50 USC Section 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 or any subsequent provisions of law.”

The evolution within the NDAA concerning indefinite detention of US citizens can be slightly confusing. The first thing a reader will notice is that the indefinite detention subsection from fiscal year 2012 has moved from 1021 to 1031 of fiscal year 2013. Another issue to note is the number of amendments that have been proposed or applied to this particular section. One of the first attempts was the Smith-Amash Amendment. Then the Feinstein-Lee Amendment was introduced, which was later replaced by the request of Sen. John McCain with the Gohmert Amendment. A lot of these amendments seek to clarify vague language and “seemingly” uphold constitutional rights. But like with any legislation, there are always loopholes which the ACLU and others have pointed out.

Due to the above issues, people within and outside of government, that seek to retain some semblance of their civil rights have moved to actions on the state level. This brings us back to the organization P.A.N.D.A. and their involvement in helping Missouri representatives get the support they need to pass this bill.

When I talked to Cottner last night she was optimistic but added she needs a lot of support and volunteers to get this done. She also warned that the citizens of Missouri only have five months (until May) to get this bill passed. The first thing that she proposed was to form a coalition for purposes of laying out an orderly plan and to conduct training sessions. Cottner explained that distance would not be an issue because they will be utilizing teleconference calls to reach people all over the state.

She also discussed that there will be many levels of opportunities for people to engage in activism everything from simple phone calls to going to the Missouri state capital in Jefferson City. We also talked about a very exciting strategy that she hopes will get the attention of local politicians. At this time I cannot disclose this plan but I can tell you that they will remember who P.A.N.D.A. is and what they stand for.

As this story develops and P.A.N.D.A. coordinates locals, we will be here to give you up-to-date coverage. If you would like to learn more about P.A.N.D.A. please go to www.pandaunite.org or if you are ready to get involved here in Missouri please call Heather Cottner at (314) 803-2364. Alternatively you can contact me via email Media@tyrannywatch.org and I will plug you in with the right people. For up-to-date coverage on the NDAA and indefinite detention please consider “ liking” P.A.N.D.A. and Tyranny Watch on Facebook or “following” us on Twitter.

RED ALERT: Anti-NDAA Legislation in MO

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 11, 2013

Late last night I received an urgent call from the founder of P.A.N.D.A (People Against the National Defense Act), Dan Johnson. He tipped me off to new legislation that is going to the table concerning the NDAA and how it applies in Missouri.

Particularly, this legislation will seek to nullify and/or amend through the state level, the indefinite detention section (1021), thus stripping the federal government of their power to indefinitely detain US citizens without a trial or jury. Unfortunately at this time I don’t have all the details like who is proposing the legislation and the specific wording but as soon as we get an update from our local P.A.N.D.A. chapter head, Heather Cottner, we will pass information on to the public.

Mr. Johnson indicated that we need to locally form a coalition to get the word out and to call local politicians to make sure they do the right thing. We will soon be announcing when and where we’re going to meet up. Also we will create a call list and assembling a team to contact legislators in our state. If interested, you may contact Heather Cottner at (314) 803-2364 or reach me at Media@tyrannywatch.org and we will plug you in where you are needed most.

For those of you who are new to the NDAA, here is a short refresher. First, it is important to read the actual text of the specific subsection within the bill. It reads as follows:

(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.

A key thing to note, and what some people don’t seem to realize, is that this is a bill that is signed at the end of each year for next year’s defense operations. A lot of it has to do with funding but like with many bills politicians try to throw in things that are not necessarily essential to the operations of the military. One thing that was included in last year’s updated bill was a reference to bestiality. The deceptive and somewhat shrewd actions (as far as stratagem is concerned) are when “pet-project” legislation is slipped into a bill that must be signed so that various agencies and branches of the government can function.

Usually, when people talk about the NDAA, they are really referring to section 1021 that refers to “indefinite detention” of US citizens. It is basically activists using shorthand. As seen in the above subsection of the bill, it creates a homeland battlefield that uses the military as police (which violates posse comitatus). It also reinforces a couple other bills that give the military overreaching powers.

The implication of this subsection declares that enemy combatants can be any US citizen that has associations with anybody that is on a terrorist watch list. Some might find this sensible but in reality, if you are a law-abiding citizen but are a thorn in the government side, they could “black bag” you, whisk you off to a secret location, and hold you there until they deem you not a threat anymore. This could include anyone from political dissidents, journalists, veterans, and any other person that is not going along with the program.

The indefinite detention section of this bill was early on concealed from the public until the last-minute because the authoritarians in the House and Senate knew a few vague sentences could legally change drastically how enemies of the state are dealt with. This is why the bait and switch tactic was used. When subsection 1021 was exposed, politicians in Washington claimed it couldn’t be used against Americans but later came out and said that it could.

During the same time the Obama administration criticized the indefinite detention section and said he would veto the bill when it came to his desk. This caused an outcry from one of the co-authors of the bill who exposed the president by saying that it was his idea of putting it into the bill. Simultaneously other politicians were coming out and admitting that it could be used against Americans and that anybody that this section would apply to, deserves their rights being stripped and even being killed.

Despite the outrage of the public the bill quietly reached Pres. Obama’s desk late on New Year’s Eve, when they obviously knew that activists, media, and other politicians who are against indefinite detention would not be quickly aware of what was going on. Barack, to appear concerned and defiant of section 1021, attached to the bill a ridiculous signing statement that said he would not use this against American citizens even though he had the power to do so. This of course would later prove to be a lie.

Since then thousands of activists from all over the country have engaged their legislators, have taken to the streets in protest, and have formed small cell groups planning actions to educate the public and rally support from those people in DC that claim to be our representatives. This is the state we’re in now and this is where we need people to become active on the growing police state. As more develops we will give you the updates.

We Are Change STL Exposes the Matrix on UMSL Campus

On Friday Novemeber 9, 2012 We Are Change-STL visited the UMSL campus to talk with college students and professors on 5 important topics. The questions are as follows:

  1. What is the Federal Reserve?
  2. Can you point out (in the picture) where a Bowing 747 jetliner hit that building (Pentagon)?
  3. Should genetically modified food (GMO) be labeled?
  4. Which presidential candidate (Obama or Romney) supports drone bombing?
  5. Which presidential candidate (Obama or Romney) supports indefinite detention of US citizens?

Watch the video above for the surprising answers. As noted in the video, research these 5 topics for yourself so that you may be fully informed!

Please check out and “like” WRC-STL on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/WeAreChangeSTL

TW Radio Archives Interview With STL Anonymous on Trapwire

Saint Louis Anonymous

Tyranny Watch presents Episode #4 – This week’s episode Zachary talks to STL Anonymous about Trapwire, Stratfor leaks, and the growing spy grid being put in place. We also discuss the Anonymous-based activism that happened in St. Louis on October 20th from Noon-10pm downtown at Keiner Plaza.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD

Todd Akin Says NDAA Is Constitutional

Todd Akin

Zachary Cole
11/05/12
TyrannyWatch.org

The indefinite detention section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has been a hot button issue since its ratification into law. Basically this section of the bill declares US territory as a battlefield and gives the government power to detain citizens for an undetermined amount of time without due process. It also lay out in this section, albeit vaguely, that anyone associated or frequently communicates with those the government deems as terrorists can be place under the same treatment. This could potentially include journalists, veterans, and those that network with various political or religious groups.

Senator McCain, co-author of the bill, confirmed that US citizens could be indefinitely detained and Senator Lindsey Graham even went as far to say that an American can be killed. Senator Carl Levin, who is another author, surprisingly exposed the Obama administration on the floor by saying that it was the president that insisted indefinite detention be left in the bill (despite telling the media he was not for it). Although there was little debate from the Republicans or Democrats, President Obama still insisted on his objection and signed the bill into law under the eve of a New Year (2012). He tried to justify his action with a signing statement promising not to use the power of indefinite detention on US citizens. This of course broke his previous word that he would veto the bill if it included this section and as we have seen since its ratification into law the government has used it to detain indefinitely and even kill US citizens (like that of Anwar al-Awlaki).

Now we are again on another eve but this time it is the election of 2012. A lot is up for grabs this time around and it is not just the office of president. Locally in Missouri we have a heated race between Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and Representative Todd Akin (R). Akin most recently he has been in hot water for his statement on abortion for victims of rape which lead to a firestorm of condemnation from the left and right.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

TW Radio Archives Interview With Courtnae Smith of Occupy STL

Courtnae Smith

Courtnae Smith of Occupy Saint Louis (OSTL)

Previously recorded 10/04/12 a few days after the one year anniversary of Occupy STL.  We discuss misconceptions people have about the Occupy movement and the future of local activism. Featured music by Rev Dellic called “The 99”.

Listen or Download HERE!