Comments (15)

• 

  Name

  Andrew Jackson was not president after Lincoln. While you sort of correct this in the same paragraph (you use the name Johnson, who did follow Lincoln) it is still Jackson’s picture you have posted.

  December 17, 2011 at 10:16 pm
  • 

    Shanon Brooks

    Thank you!
    I did add a disclaimer at the end of the post suggesting that I might not be accurate on my facts, but I was actually so concerned about the voting records that I missed this huge embarrassing error.
    If there was any doubt as to my fallibility, all doubt is now cast aside.
    Thanks again.

    December 18, 2011 at 10:14 am
  • 

    Magellan

    Shannon – You are correct. That IS a picture of Andrew Johnson who was the V.P. when President Lincoln was assinated. The Congress tried to impeach him, but failed by one vote.

    December 22, 2011 at 7:08 am
    • 

      Shanon Brooks

      Thanks. That post was done in great haste and I may never live down the mistakes….oh well.

      December 22, 2011 at 11:15 am
• 

  Sharla Christie

  I believe they were under martial law, rather than Marshall Law from 1865 to 1877, meaning the imposition of military rule on the people. This is supposedly a temporary state of affairs; however, looking to the future, as you pointed out, they may be planning on it being a little more permanent. Thanks for the article.

  December 18, 2011 at 12:36 am
  • 

    Shanon Brooks

    Boy, when I make errors I do it big. I knew I was sending this without my usual editing time (can’t see my own mistakes) but this is terrible.
    Of course you are right. Thank goodness this only a blog and not a book or letter to the president.
    I would personally not consider marshall law for ten years as a temporary state of affairs. And if it weren’t for the Compromise of 1877, who knows how long this state of affairs would have continued.
    It gives me chills.

    December 18, 2011 at 10:19 am
• 

  Scott Mitchell

  Spooky. Once more to rid Utah of Hatch and Matheson

  December 18, 2011 at 10:27 am
  • 

    Shanon Brooks

    You said it Scott.

    December 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm
• 

  Wilma Koss

  I have attempted to read the text of H.R.1540 but cannot find the section to which Paul refers. Since my congressman voted in favor of the bill, I would like to question him on his lack of support for personal liberty, but would like to have accurate facts.
  If you can provide the Title and Section, I would be most appreciative.

  December 18, 2011 at 11:14 am
  • 

    Shanon Brooks

    Try page 418 sect. 1031

    December 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm
• 

  Shanon Brooks

  Wilma,
  This law allows the military to incarcerate an American citizen, on American and hold them indefinitely without trial.
  This violates Posse Comitatus, Due Process, and Habeas Corpus. This is what U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar what talking about. You could ask your rep. if this law has any negative impact on those three things and if yes, then why did he vote for them?
  If he says no, then ask is there any possibility that the law allows the military to incarcerate an American citizen, on American and hold them indefinitely without trial. If no, he has either not read the law, is extremely naive or he is lying.
  The question here is, when national security and civil liberty are at odds, what should take primacy?
  Always civil liberties! Show me an occasion where security over-shadowed civil liberties, and then the liberties were restored and I will show you a hundred times when they were not!!
  Government almost never gives up power voluntarily.That is its nature. We would do well to consider that fact.

  December 18, 2011 at 12:01 pm
• 

  Taylene

  So, what action should we take now?

  December 19, 2011 at 3:01 pm
  • 

    Shanon Brooks

    That is the million dollar question. Following historical precedent, this had to happen, going so far down the wrong road, that we can not get back. Getting the right person into the White House, could help, someone who will not exercise this new power against American citizens.
    Another thing would be to beef-up our state governments, meaning to increase state sovereignty.
    Also, locally, we can all get very involved in our local government, get out of debt, enhance family relations and increase our own liberal arts educations.
    A good president (I favor Ron Paul) will make a difference, but the bottom line is if we are to have our rights and liberties protected, we need to do the protecting. This will happen one way or another–either we engage in the day-to-day local political process, personally achieve economic freedom (see The Servile State blog post), and stay vigilant, holding our elected officials’ feet to the fire or we will lose our rights and liberties and either live in tyranny or have to fight to try to get them back.

    December 19, 2011 at 3:29 pm
• 

  Lowell Nelson

  Another thing we can (should) do is support our local sheriff, particularly if he understands and adheres to the Constitution. Clearly, H.R. 1540 violates the constitutionally guaranteed rights to habeas corpus, to due process, etc., and would be held to be null and void by a good sheriff, who is the chief law enforcement officer in your county. Such a sheriff would interpose himself and his deputies between you (the citizenry) and any federal agents who attempted to execute the unconstitutional law. Sheriff Richard Mack will be training over a hundred sheriffs on this subject on January 31, 2012 at the CSPOA Convention. Please consider a donation to this cause. We may have lost most of Congress to the dark side, but there are still a number of sheriffs who will stand up for citizens in this country.

  December 19, 2011 at 9:10 pm
  • 

    Shanon Brooks

    It is true, the sheriff is the end of the line or the final defense in a county. A group of well educated sheriffs could make a real impact.

    December 19, 2011 at 9:51 pm

Comments are closed.