The bill has a rocky road to pass before the session ends, but might have a chance to survive if Governor Perry extends the session which is expected to happen.

Please,  give Senator Ellis a call at (512) 463- 0113 and let him know that Texans do want this bill and a floor vote.

The Second Amendment Protection Act (HB 928) is languishing in the Senate. The speculation is that Senate Democrats are planning to filibuster the bill or any other pro-gun legislation that reaches the floor. This is the time we need to pressure these Senators into supporting this important legislation.

If your State Senator is a Democrat, please call them today! Here are Texas Democratic Senators:

Wendy Davis-  (512) 463-0110

Rodney Ellis-  (512) 463-0113

Sylvia R. Garcia-  (512) 463-0106

Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa-  (512) 463-0120

Eduardo A. “Eddie” Lucio, Jr.-  (512) 463-0127

Jose Rodriguez-  (512) 463-0129

Carlos Uresti-  (512) 463-0119

Leticia Van de Putte-  (512) 463-0126

Kirk Watson-  (512) 463-0114

Royce West-  (512) 463-0123

John Whitmire-  (512) 463-0115

Judith Zaffirini-  (512) 463-0121

Again if any of these are your State Senators, please call today and tell them of your support of HB 928.

Please call the Speaker at this number, (512) 463-1000 and encourage him to move the bill unto the floor for a vote. Also, make sure you contact and encourage your representative to support this important bill as well. You can find out who your representative is here.

Thank you for all your help with these liberty bills.

Contact info for all involved is below:

Jennifer Welch – Clerk (512) 463-0758
Todd Hunter – Chairman (512) 463-0672
Eddie Lucio III – Vice Chair (512) 463-0606
Robert Alonzo (512) 463-0408
Carol Alvarado (512) 463-0732
Dan Branch (512) 463-0367
Angie Chen Button (512) 463-0486
Byron Cook (512) 463-0730
Myra Crownover (512) 463-0582
Sarah Davis (512) 463-0389
Craig Eiland (512) 463-0502
John Frullo (512) 463-0676
Charlie Geren (512) 463-0610
Helen Giddings (512) 463-0953
John Kuempel (512) 463-0602
Doug Miller (512) 463-0325

Thanks to Clint “I have a cool Texan name” Stutts for the information!

Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 opened the door for the indefinite detention of 120,000 Japanese-American citizens living along the west coast of the United States, loss of their property and transportation to internment camps located deep within the American heartland. Not only were Japanese-American citizens rounded up and shipped off, so too were 11,000 German-American citizens and 3,000 Italian-American citizens. After the war, Americans avowed to never again let this sort of indiscriminate indefinite detention of United States citizens by the United States government happen again—EVER!

However, as we all know, history has a way of repeating itself. Now, 71 years later, comes President Barack Obama. In December 2011, Mr. Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 into law. Deep within the bowels of this Act, Sections 1021 and 1022 set forth, as in 1942, laws regarding indefinite detention of “covered persons” (undefined) whom the federal government suspects of being involved in “terrorist” activities” (also undefined).

The objective of House Bill 149, The Texas Liberty Preservation Act, is to challenge the constitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 by nullifying Sections 1021 and 1022 of this federal Act.Texas must stand and confront the ever growing scope of the President’s authority that now includes the indefinite detention of “covered persons”, i.e., Texas sovereign citizens.

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 has set the stage for the arrest and indefinite detention of any and all sovereign citizens, no matter their political affiliation, who may disagree with, protest against or challenge the occupant of the White House—be that a Democrat or a Republican. This is not the first time the republic has faced a blatant disregard of individual rights and sovereignty. President Adams is well known for his role in, and support of, The Alien and Sedition Acts. President Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus for those who disagreed with him and challenged him in the media and in court, President Franklin Roosevelt detained 150,000 United States citizens because of their ethnic heritage and color of their skin and now Barack Obama wants the ability to indefinitely detain Texas citizens who, like those in Adams and Lincoln’s time, dare to openly challenge the federal government and more specifically, the Executive Officer—the president of the United States—as is their right as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Texas Constitution (Article One)—the Texas Bill of Rights.

Texas is not alone in its attempt to nullify this unconstitutional federal legislation.  12 other states (Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Washington, Wyoming, Indiana, Oklahoma and Arizona), ¼ of the republic, are saying “NO!” to indefinite detention of its sovereign citizens.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” 

–The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Why is this important?  “This bill (HB 149) is designed to stop “indefinite detention” (an undefined term) by nullifying two sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. Under NDAA of 2012, the federal government claims the right to detain anyone identified as a “covered person” (another term yet to be defined) that it suspects of being involved in “terrorist activities” (yet another term undefined). Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA offer only vague definitions for nearly all of its most important provisions.”

Texas HB 149, the Texas Liberty Preservation Act, imposes criminal penalties of one year in prison and up to a $10,000 fine for any federal agent who would attempt  to carry out such “indefinite detention” (within the state of Texas).” –Garry Reed, Examiner.com  HB 149 Text

PLEASE ACT TODAY!!

Please contact members of the Calendars Committee (shown below) and urge them to push HB 149 to the top of the Calendars Committee docket so that the Texas Liberty Preservation Act can be debated and approved on the House floor, moved on to the Senate for passage and sent to Governor Perry for signature into law.

Calendars Committee members (Clerk: Jennifer Welch (jennifer.welch@house.state.tx.us, 512-463-0758):

Chair, Todd Hunter (R), 512-463-0672

todd.hunter@house.state.tx.us

Vice Chair, Eddie Lucio (D), 512-463-0606 (Note: Representative Lucio is also a member of the Federalism and Fiscal Responsibilities Committee (FFR). He was absent when HB 149 was voted out of the FFR Committee on April 24th.)

eddie.lucio@house.state.tx.us

Roberto Alonzo (D), 512-463-0408

roberto.alonzo@house.state.tx.us

Carol Alvarado (D), 512-463-0732

carol.alvarado@house.state.tx.us

Dan Branch (R), 512-463- 0367

dan.branch@house.state.tx.us

Angie Chen Button (R), 512-463-0486

angie.button@house.state.tx.us

Byron Cook (R), 512-463-0730

byron.cook@house.state.tx.us

Myra Crownover (R), 512-463-0582

myra.crownover@house.state.tx.us

Sarah Davis (R), 512-463-0389

sarah.davis@house.state.tx.us

Craig Eiland (R), 512-463- 0502

craig.eiland@house.state.tx.us

John Fruillo (R), 512-463- 0676

john.fruillo@house.state.tx.us

Charlie Geren (R), 512-463-0610

charlie.geren@house.state.tx.us

Helen Giddings (D), 512-463-0953

helen.giddings@house.state.tx.us

John Kuemple (R), 512-463- 0602

john.kuemple@house.state.tx.us

Doug Miller (R), 512-463- 0325

doug.miller@house.state.tx.us

House Bill Number 3785

Nullifies

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

(Known as Obamacare)

The House Committee on Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility

Is holding a hearing on Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

At 2pm, in room E2.036

If you can’t attend in person

Please, contact the following legislators

Affirming your support for HB 3785.

Rep. Brandon Creighton, Chair

brandon.creighton@house.state.tx.us

512-463-0726

Rep. Cindy Burkett

cindy.burkett@house.state.tx.us

512-463-0464

Rep. Eddie Lucio,

eddie.lucio@house.state.tx.us,

512-463-0606

Rep. Scott Turner

scott.turner@house.state.tx.us

512-463-0484

Rep. Armando Walle

armando.walle@house.state.tx.us,

512-463-0924

Much thanks to Clint Stutts for providing this information.

Sure you do!

Right?

Are you sure?

Please, consider the following questions:

Should the federal government be involved in regulating marijuana?

Should the federal government be involved in regulating other drugs?

Should the federal government establish a central bank?

Should the federal government declare anyone an enemy combatant without due process?

Should the federal government regulate marriage: gay or straight?

Should the federal government take either the Pro-Choice or Pro-Life stance on abortions?

Should the federal government regulate guns?

Should the federal government interfere in the health care market?

Should the federal government interfere in education?

If you answered “Yes,” to any of these questions, then on some level you don’t believe in the concept of self-rule.  Therefore, you are imposing your values or morals on others who might not share them.

Shocking, huh?

Let us say you live in Texas and are opposed to marijuana legalization.  Do you have the moral authority to force the Dutch to change their laws?  The answer is clearly no.  Then where you do have the moral authority to tell Colorado or Washington that they can’t.

And Switzerland requires all adult males to have a rifle and bullets on hand.  Does a liberal in New York have the moral authority to force the Swiss to change their gun laws?  Of course not!  So where do people in other states find the moral authority to tell Texas what kind of gun laws they should have?

Clearly, neither party has such authority.  These issues should be handled on the state level.  Yet people on both sides of the aisle want to use the power of Washington DC to force their values on the whole U.S.  Using Washington denies folks of self-rule.

The statists will argue we can’t do this because there will be too much chaos, and we do need the federal government standardize things between the states.

Why?

The Netherlands is a small country featuring a socialized health care system. The Dutch don’t depend on Europe maintain it.  If the Netherlands does it, what stops liberal states like New York or California from doing the same?   Why force states that don’t want it into a one-sized fits all system?  By using force here, does this support the concept of self-rule?

The next criticism that I usually endure is, “But, wait!  Are we all Americans and Congress has the responsibility to determine outcomes on these issues and apply them to the nation as a whole?”

Sigh…

France’s government is an example of a national system with a strong central government located in its capital of Paris.  It does have smaller units where are called provinces.  These provinces have limited sovereignty answering to the central authority.  But the Founders of the U.S. created a federal system with states maintaining their sovereignty over all things not delegated to the general government, which is limited and answers to the states.  This is why we are called the United STATES of America and not the United PROVINCES of America.

The concept behind our government looks more like the European Union – sovereign political societies united for common purposes. But even the European Union enjoys more power than U.S. federal government.  The US Constitution with all its amendments comes in at roughly 7,200 words, while the Treaty of Lisbon (EU’s central document) features around 76,000 words.

The next question that is often asked, “What about the states abusing power?”

Of course they will!  They are governments after all!  However, we find a check on that. If issues like gay marriage, gun rights, state healthcare, or taxes are important, you always have the option of moving to a state that represents your own views. A system with generally autonomous states creates a “free market of policies.” States will try things, mimic successful programs and toss aside and unsuccessful. And the people of a smaller political unit maintain more control over their own representatives then they do in a large centralized system.

But when the federal government passes an offensive act like the NDAA, what do you do and where can you go then?  How important is gay marriage when that recently wedded gay man is being hulled off to Gitmo without due process?

Make the states themselves compete for your residency and your tax dollars.  If we believe in this concept between McDonalds and Burger King, why not allow competition between the states themselves?  The more liberty minded the state, the more people will come to them generating more tax revenue. Or if the people really want a cradle-to-grave nanny state, people will flock to those areas.

At this point some progressives will call me “mad.”

If I suffer from insanity, what about this?

We currently live within a two-party system, each fighting for control.  No matter which side wins, half the country will be angry. They know an agenda they don’t approve is heading their way.  The party out of power will do all it can to undermine the party in power.  Then, at some point, the party in power will betray their so-called principles.  Then we’ll experience the really scary moments when both parties overwhelmingly agree on something horrendous.  Can we say Patriot Act, TARP and the NDAA? Bipartisanship isn’t always good!

This whole process is insane!

Somehow these statists wants us to believe in those non-corruptible, purely-hearted public servants will sacrifice much to server their higher calling to serve the public good.

Seriously?

And, I’m mad?

Wouldn’t it just be better to let states handle these matters for themselves, allowing the people more direct control over their destiny?

You know; self-rule.

Councilwoman Heidi Thiess introduced this resolution and states from her website:

Now it’s time for the Liberty Preservation Resolution, which defends against the unconstitutional powers accrued by the Executive branch to deem an American citizen a “belligerent or terroristic threat”, to detain them indefinitely without due process, and effectively strip them of their right of habeas corpus and other civil liberties enumerated in our U.S. Constitution and Texas State Constitution

Last month, Councilwoman Thiess also introduced a Second Amendment Protection Resolution which also won by the same margin: 7-1.  Councilman Dennis O’Keefe was lone exception vote with both resolutions.

Sections of the Liberty Preservation Resolutions states:

 Instruct all our public agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel;

Expect all federal and state law enforcement officials acting within the City to work in accordance with local law, and in cooperation with the League City Police Department, by allowing any detainees among League City’s residents or visitors access to a trial, counsel and due process, as provided by Article III of the Constitution of the United States

ACTION ITEMS:

If you live in League City, Texas, contact them here and express your support for such measures and encourage them to continue using nullification on other issues of concern.

Also, you want to politely express to Councilman Dennis O’Keefe to change his voting pattern and start supporting this nullification resolutions in his city.

If you live virtually anywhere else, contact everyone from your city council, county officials, and state legislators to nullify the continuingly unconstitutional expansion of the federal government.

Part of the bill states:

The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) interferes with the right of the people of the State of Texas to regulate health care as they see fit.

Also, the bill states the United States Supreme Court decision upholding the PPACA as a tax is invalid.  One of the reasons stated was:

the legislative intent was to enforce it as a penalty; the court chose to legislate from the bench by classifying it as a tax; this is a clear overreach of judicial power, as all legislative powers are vested in the United States Congress.
ACTION ALERT

If you live in Texas:

Now is the time to call or email the reps listed below. First and foremost, we need urge Brandon Creighton to give our bill a hearing. Without a hearing, we’re dead in the water. While it’s fine for people outside his district to contact him, he will obviously give more weight to his constituents contacting him about it. If you know people who live in Creighton’s district (HD 16), please contact them and get them to call or email him. When you contact the other committee members, urge them to vote in favor of it.

Rep. Brandon Creighton, Chair, brandon.creighton@house.state.tx.us, 512-463-0726
Rep. Cindy Burkett, cindy.burkett@house.state.tx.us, 512-463-0464
Rep. Eddie Lucio, eddie.lucio@house.state.tx.us, 512-463-0606
Rep. Scott Turner, scott.turner@house.state.tx.us, 512-463-0484
Rep. Armando Walle, armando.walle@house.state.tx.us, 512-463-0924
Clerk: Amy Miller, amy.miller@house.state.tx.us, 512-463-786

If you live outside Texas, contact your local representative and encourage them to support similar legislation.

Thanks to Clint Stutts for providing the information.