Everyone's Plan B

Group Discussions

November 28, 2012

Here is a link to a Rand Paul petition to stop NDAA. Please sign right away and post in as many groups as you can - http://www.randpacusa.com/ndaa_sign.aspx...

1 year 4 months ago

THANKS WESLEY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rand has the courage to fight his own party on this, he needs our help!

1 year 4 months ago

Yes, sorta, kinda he does. That there is resistance in the Republican Party to even such a small accommodation as Rand is proposing is indicative of the serious problem we have with the party. Rand's amendment as I've seen it so far, is a baby step that doesn't pack much wallop.
There should be no expectation that this is enough and that the problem with the NDAA is resolved should this amendment pass.

 … More
1 year 4 months ago

Petitions, good intent zero effect. Concrete efforts, phone calls, visit to congressional offices, in home districts. Public pressure works best
Rand Pac will solicit donations as soon as you sign a petition the emails begin

1 year 4 months ago (Edited)

That's a great point Randy. There is an aspect of the petition by Randpac that suggests that they are trying to grow their database of names and email addresses for their own benefit. I think you are right in that we need to directly communicate with our own Senators especially and of course with anyone else who might assist in applying the pressure on them.

1 year 4 months ago

Sue, it is from lessons learned in the patriot movement, I collected for Ohio Health care Amendment. We were told those signatures would not be used, however, they LIED people were contacting signers for donations So of course I looked bad.

1 year 4 months ago

I signed and donated. Keep up the good work Rand!

1 year 4 months ago

message from Rand Paul PAC -

"The right to a trial by jury is one of the very foundations of our Republic.

Thanks to the petitions and phone calls from concerned Americans like you, the Amendment stripping the indefinite detention language out of the NDAA just passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 67-29.

But this fight isn't over yet.

Since the Senate amended the NDAA, it now has to go back to the House for approval.

 … More
1 year 4 months ago

The indefinite detention language was not exactly stripped. It's a pretty weak amendment, but it surely is better than nothing. A step in the right direction, but we aren't done with the NDAA yet.

1 year 4 months ago

It does seem to take away the power for tyranny and restore the 6th amendment, in that we get back the requirement for being charged with a crime, get a trial and no indefinite detention. Unless there's a loophole I'm missing.

It only applies to those of us on U.S. soil, not in other countries.

 … More
1 year 4 months ago

They can still grab people. The definition of terrorist is still vague. What's the crime exactly?
There is also something about the use of the word "military". Is it too specific? What if it's the FBI? Homeland Security cops?

1 year 4 months ago (Edited)

The Smith-Amash amendment was a repeal of the most egregious sections. It didn't get anywhere. This one is something because it got somewhere and as such is better than nothing though.

1 year 4 months ago

Hmm, it also says a declaration of war or any similar authority.

Then line 14 says ... shall not authorize the detention ....

The "war on terror" (not really declared) or any similar authority ... that's vague. Maybe if similar wasn't in there, just any authority.

It will be interesting to see what Ron Paul thinks about it.

1 year 4 months ago

It will be interesting to hear how it states it. I don't want to present an entirely negative impression, the amendment is something. Only a complete repeal of the Patriot Act and the NDAA accompanied by abolishing or at least drastically reducing Homeland Security and of course ridding ourselves of the TSA is to be considered a real victory though.

 … More
1 year 4 months ago

NDAA can't be totally repealed since it's national defense funding for troops, etc. That's how they slid the bad parts in, can't vote against funding our troops! (but they could have left the bad parts out then)

As for the "bad parts" they still want to be able to detain U.S. citizens who join terrorists (the bad guys :) in the Middle East, so I can see that as their justification for this amendment only applying to the U.S.

 … More
1 year 4 months ago

That's not what I meant about the fight not being over and I think the NDAA should be entirely scrapped and something much more simple and direct be put in it's place if the entirety of funding for our national defense is dependent on it.
The definition of terrorist is the single most critical problem. What's wrong with criminal? What constitutes a crime? We punish things other than crimes or breach of contract?

1 year 4 months ago
Log in or Register to start a discussion.