Breaking: Utah Bill to Cut Off Water Supply to NSA Data Center

Tenth Amendment Center

Thanks, Jane.

You gotta love news like THIS!  It seems the Utah Data Center has suffered its fair share of challenges. A few months ago it was massive, recurring power outages and blown circuits. Now The People are outright declaring war and introduced similar action in Maryland recently.

The People have reared their lovely heads and are sticking it to the NSA, DHS, the Feds—in an unmistakable way.  Let’s see them try to stop this bill. 

Since we’re on the topic of the NSA, the other day I was drawing a bath and spied something unusual in the sky. We have a large picture window next to the tub facing the mountain, and something was soaring around overhead that I’ve never seen before. I thought it was a bird, but…

… the birds I always see are turkey vultures. They’re black, have a huge wing span with grey undersides, and usually soar in pairs or multiple pairs on the updrafts created when the breezes meet the sheer face of the mountain.

turkey vulture

Then I began watching one of Rev. Michelle Hopkins videos on the “fake snow” and in it she included footage of a bird drone! It was very possibly what I had just seen minutes before, and with THAT I immediately closed the blind all the way.

They’ve gone WAY too far and must be stopped.  Take action below if you feel so guided.

Before It’s News featured the video on one of their posts, here.  Fast-forward to 12:00 to see the bird drone. Pretty convincing, and pretty disgusting.  ~ BP

 

nsa-utah-021214

Utah legislator introduces bill to cut off NSA’s water supply

Can Utah shut down the new NSA data center by turning off the water? A new bill introduced by state rep. Marc Roberts seeks to do just that.

Based on model legislation drafted by a transpartisan coalition organized by the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) called the OffNow Coalition, the Utah 4th Amendment Protection Act would prohibit state material support, participation, or assistance to any federal agency that collects electronic data or metadata without a search warrant “that particularly describes the person, place and thing to be searched or seized.”

This puts contracts that provide the 1.7 million gallons of water a day necessary to cool the NSA computers at its Bluffdale facility in the crosshairs.

“Without question, the mass surveillance and data collection by the Utah Data Center is a delicate and important matter,” Roberts said. “But for me, the language of the Fourth Amendment is clear.  It simply protects us against unreasonable and unwarranted searches or seizures of our persons, private residencies and property, documents and information and personal and private belongings.  This legislation preserves those rights to the people.”

Bluffdale, a political subdivision of Utah, provided the NSA with a sweetheart water deal. The bill would begin the process of ending that deal, potentially crippling the NSA’s ability to keep the facility functional.

“No water equals no NSA data center,” TAC executive director Michael Boldin said.

He called the potential impact of this legislation significant, especially compared to what Congress has done to deal with the agency.

“In 1975, Sen. Frank Church warned that the power of the NSA could enable ‘total tyranny.’ He recommended that Congress should limit the agency’s power. Almost four decades later, we’re still waiting. Congress is not going to stop the NSA. The people and their states have to,” Boldin said. “Turn it off.”

BORDC executive director Shahid Buttar echoed Boldin’s enthusiasm for state action.

“At stake is nothing less than our nation’s triumph in the Cold War. The NSA’s decade of warrantless surveillance en masse assaults not only the rights of hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans, and our democracy as a whole, but resembles Soviet-style spying — on meth, empowered and amplified by the past generation’s remarkable advances in computing technology,” he said. “Utah residents have a chance to take matters into their own hands, defending democracy by shutting off state resources consumed by the Bluffdale data center in its assault on We the People, our fundamental rights, and the Constitution that enshrined them.”

Notable anti-establishment figures such as Naomi Wolf and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg advise the BORDC.

Utah doesn’t stand alone. Earlier this week, a group of Maryland legislators introduced a similar bill, targeting water and other resources to NSA headquarters. Lawmakers in more than 10 other states, including California, Vermont and Alaska, have also introduced the legislation. A bill in Tennessee addresses material support and resources to the NSA’s encryption-breaking facility at Oak Ridge.

Boldin said other states need to join the push, even those without NSA facilities. He called it essential.

“If enough states do this in the coming years, the NSA won’t have a place in the country where their spy centers are welcome,” he said.

Other provisions of the Fourth Amendment Protection Act would also have an impact. The bill would make data collected by the NSA and shared with state and local law enforcement in Utah inadmissible in court, unless a specific warrant is issued.

TAC national communications director Mike Maharrey said that this provision might prove as important as cutting off the water, because it erases a practical effect of NSA spying.

“We know the NSA shares data with state and local law enforcement. We know from a Reuters report that most of this shared data has absolutely nothing to do with national security issues,” he said. “This data sharing shoves a dagger into the heart of the Fourth Amendment. This bill would stop that from happening immediately.”

The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot “commandeer” or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations – constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. The 1997 case, Printz v. US, serves as the modern cornerstone. The majority opinion deemed commandeering “incompatible with our constitutional system.”

“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Boldin emphasized this is just the beginning.

“It took the people of Illinois ten years to legalize marijuana for medical use,” he said. “This isn’t going to be easy, and we’re not stopping until we win. The NSA has a choice; follow the constitution or get the hell out.”

TAKE ACTION

In Utah, SUPPORT THIS BILL HERE: http://offnow.org/utah

All other states, take action here: http://offnow.org/state

REPORT HERE: 
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/12/utah-legislator-introduces-bill-to-cut-of-nsa-data-centers-water-supply/

TAKE ACTION;  We have got a LOT of work to do to get bills passed in Utah, Maryland, California, Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma, and other states.

Get active HERE:  http://offnow.org/state

Local Sheriffs Obliged to Protect Americans’ Guns

A high-profile former sheriff who once sued the U.S. government over its gun regulations – and won – says it’s the local sheriff who will have to defend Americans when and if the feds start banning and confiscating guns.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., joined with then-Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a lawsuit against Washington when Bill Clinton demanded sheriffs enforce provisions of the Brady Bill gun-control law.

He won. And since then he’s been at the front of a movement that highlights the responsibility of local sheriffs.

Now, as Washington gears up to consider imperious plans to limit guns, require fingerprinting and registration, impose additional taxes and fees, ban particular features or functions outright, and even confiscate weapons of self-defense, Mack has told WND that there’s hope remaining in local law enforcement.

It’s not complicated, he said.

“Gun control is illegal, and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”

He said he would expect sheriffs across the country to defend the rights of ordinary Americans.

“I hope and pray America’s sheriffs won’t allow any more gun control,” Mack said. “The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it.

“In the ’90s when I was the sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., we worked with other sheriffs and stopped two or three Brady Bills,” he recalled, a fight that he’s been detailing in seminars with sheriffs.

He said the office is critical, as it’s not only in law enforcement, but also is elected directly by the people.

“Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court,” Mack said. “Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation.”

Alan Stang at News With Views wrote about another battle Mack encountered while sheriff. A bridge had washed out and parents were driving children 26 miles to school, which physically was located only half a mile across a river.

The county decided the fix the bridge and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warned that an environmental study alone would take 10 years. Mack promised to provide protection for the workers, and said he’d call out a posse if needed.

The bridge was built.

Stang wrote about other close encounter between sheriffs and the feds:

Find out who is working to aid Barack Obama in the destruction of the 2nd Amendment, in “America Disarmed.”

“In 1997, in Nye County, Nev., federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. … In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was ‘inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force.’ More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.”

Mack, who’s written “The Magic of Gun Control,” said if there is an actual specific plan to start taking Americans’ weapons, he expects a response.
“If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation,” Mack said.

Just a day earlier, WND reported that Firearms Coalition Executive Director Jeff Knox said Second Amendment supporters aren’t planning negotiations with Obama over gun control.

“We are not going to back down. We are not going to give in. And we are not going to concede one more inch,” Knox said.

He was responding to questions about America’s response to plans like those from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to demand gun registration, bans and fingerprinting in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut.

“Unfortunately, the president and other anti-rights politicians are not doing anything to keep what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary from happening again,” he said. “Instead they are going after law-abiding gun owners and targeting commonly owned firearms and ammunition feeding devices. Their proposed restrictions on these items would have had no impact on what happened at Sandy Hook, and, if passed, would not stop the next craven murderer from wreaking just as much havoc and destruction.”

Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt shares Mack’s opinion.

“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt told WND. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”

He cited a move that already is surging among states to adopt laws and use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal activity. The Tenth Amendment simply reserves to the states and the people all responsibilities not specifically assigned to Washington in the Constitution.

Pratt noted the move that over the past few years has seen eight states adopt laws that exempt firearms made, sold and kept in the state from federal oversight. The federal government has taken the issue to court, where it remains at this point.

“A number of states are passing laws that use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal control. Their law says that if a gun is made in the state and sold in the state, that the federal government has no control over it,” Pratt said.

He provided additional examples of what already has resulted from sheriffs’ disputes with the feds.

“In Elkhart County, Ind., there was a farmer who produced raw milk. The Department of Justice was investigating the farmer and was trying to shut down the farm,” Pratt said. “Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers defended the farmer by saying that without a warrant signed by a judge and without probable cause, they had no jurisdiction to investigate the farmer within his jurisdiction of Elkhart County.”

“Rogers said that if they didn’t leave, he would arrest them. The DoJ threatened to arrest him, but Rogers sent his deputies to defend the farmer,” Pratt said. “The feds have had to back off.”

He also said local officials in New Mexico burned trees from a small parcel of federal land to halt a raging forest fire.

“The sheriff is the chief officer in the county even on federal land if the land is in the county,” Pratt said.

But Washington is not idle. Barack Obama said he will put the weight of his office behind gun control, and Feinstein even has proposed a federal gun buyback program that has been endorsed by about 40 members of Congress.

Feinstein’s dedication to eliminating the Second Amendment is unquestioned.

The California Democrat was one of sponsors of the so-called “Brady Bill,” the 1995 “assault weapons” ban. Faced with the limitations placed in the version that was making its way through Congress, Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every gun in America, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Mack, who is also the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, said Feinstein is a “polimagician,” a political leader who believes his or her policies will work magic for their constituents.

“They think they’re special and better than everyone else. Feinstein’s [own] concealed carry permit is the product of this elitist attitude,” Mack said. He said Congress and Obama simply are loading their political agenda onto the backs of the victims of Sandy Hook.

He said gun control through history produces one result: “Genocide.” Pratt warned that Washington’s strategy will accomplish nothing but creating vast new ranks of felons in America.

“A lot of Americans spend an awful lot of money on these guns. I don’t think there will be very many who will willingly accept $200 for a gun that they paid $500 to $1,000 for,” Pratt said.

The last two major gun rights cases that went before the U.S. Supreme Court were decided in favor of gun rights, and as a followup the Second Amendment Foundation has been taking on local and state restrictions.

Read more…

Oakland County, Michigan Defends U.S. Constitution Against NDAA; Unanimous Decision

It has been said that the key to politics is persistence. In the fight against one of the most draconian laws in history, that persistence has definitely paid off.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) typically funds our national defense, including the military. It has been passed by Congress and signed by the President for 48 years now. While most previous versions have had little to no effect on America’s liberty or freedom, the 2012 NDAA destroys our Bill of Rights.

When the 2012 NDAA was being debated in the U.S. Senate, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer,” when speaking about those detained under those provisions.

Senator Graham’s statement perfectly summarizes the 2012 NDAA, which has been criticized by such a nonpartisan coalition as the Oathkeepers, ACLU, Patriot Coalition, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and Cracked Magazine, and allows the President to order anyone, including a U.S. citizen, to be secretly arrested, never to see their family again, and be held indefinitely without due process of law (did we mention assassinated?)

Oakland County, Michigan, home to over 1.5 million people and sitting in the heart of Southeast Michigan, has been described by groups from the Center for Digital Government and the National Association of Counties as one of the best run county governments in the nation. The Oakland County Commissioners proved they have earned that reputation on Thursday.

Two weeks ago, the General Government Committee of the Oakland County Commission held a hearing to consider the resolution in opposition to the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA. After hearing from People against the NDAA (PANDA) National, PANDA Bloomfield, the Michigan Tenth Amendment Center and Michigan Campaign for Liberty, along with individuals such as Anna Janek, Allegan County Commissioner Bill Sage and Congressional Candidate Don Valoric, the committee moved to vote on the resolution

The resolution passed unanimously out of committee with a 9-0 vote.

On Thursday, PANDA returned to the Oakland County Commission to assist local residents in defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Dan Johnson and Dennis Marburger from PANDA, Dave Lonier, Mary MacMaster, Anna Janek, and the Michigan Tenth Amendment Center’s Shane Trejo all gave speeches describing the bipartisan coalition fighting this law, the effectiveness of civilian courts in combating terrorism, and urged the commission to nullify it.

The Commission then moved to vote on the consent agenda, which the resolution was a key part of. Commissioners Jim Runestad and Bill Sage, Congressional Candidates Kerry Bentivolio and Don Valoric, State Representative Tom McMillin, and all their supporters held their breath. The silence was deafening as each vote was counted off…

“Commissioner Gingell? ‘Aye’

Matis? ‘Aye’

Runestad? ‘Aye’

Potts? ‘Aye.’”

In a great victory for liberty, the Liberty Preservation Resolution was approved in a unanimous vote of 24-0.

The Resolution’s clear condemnation of any and all attempts by the General Government branch of our Federal system to kidnap or indefinitely detain Americans without charge or proper trial will now be communicated to our state and national office holders. This struggle is still just beginning and there is much work yet to be done. Nonetheless, this local success will be an important building block for constitutional governance.

Oakland County, which has a reputation for top-notch county government, joins Allegan County (which has the same reputation) as the second county in Michigan to take this principled stand. It is no accident that two counties well-known for good governance would be among the first to defend the rights of the people in Michigan.

The stakes have never been higher. We the People must choose between 1776 America and 1934 Germany. If we lose this fight, the Bill of Rights is destroyed, eight of which are eviscerated, and all rights granted by the Creator, for whose protection governments are supposedly formed, will be lost.

We are determined not to lose this fight.

“We will take America back, we will restore our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we will nullify the NDAA in every city, county, and state across America.”

For a quick overview of the problems with the 2012 NDAA, please check out the video below:

 

Victory Video:

 

Source