Bill would allow DHS total Police State power over most of the United States

[cobber]

Again, what is our military going to do to prevent a foreign invasion if our government is the one who initiates it? Are the active duty units going to open their arms rooms and take to the streets? Unless things have drastically changed, my unit arms rooms never had more than 1 case of ammo for shtf situations. Divide that over 100+ soldiers. What are they going to do? Yell bang bang? You think the ammo depots won't be emptied out prior to a UN invasion?

I'm sure the colonists thought something like this before the revolution we all seem to take for granted these days.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm sure the colonists thought something like this before the revolution we all seem to take for granted these days.

Just pointing out the fallacy of depending on our military to defend us against a rogue US government. Even if the military wanted to defend the people, they'd be impotent to do so. Even as individuals, e4 and below are disarmed.

 

[Pocketman]

Well, remember when fearless leader said he wanted a civilian force as strong as the military? Here we go!

DHS is evolving into nothing more than brown shirted thugs in a different colored shirt.

DHS CAN GO TO HELL!

"fearless leader?" Did you not read the OP? This is a Republican bill. The author and 52 co-sponsors (including our own Dan Burton) are all Republicans.

 

[KLB]

Of course it is Republican, they are being strong on security!What are civil liberties when compared to that?

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Again, what is our military going to do to prevent a foreign invasion if our government is the one who initiates it? Are the active duty units going to open their arms rooms and take to the streets? Unless things have drastically changed, my unit arms rooms never had more than 1 case of ammo for shtf situations. Divide that over 100+ soldiers. What are they going to do? Yell bang bang? You think the ammo depots won't be emptied out prior to a UN invasion?

Ammo and arms apart for a reason. That one case of ammo is for security rounds, nothing more. I always knew where our ASPs were, and if they were emptied where would they put it all?


Tell me who has the ability to invade the US? Other than a miltia's wet dream, nobody has the ability to do it.

 

[rambone]

Remind me why are we talking about foreign invasions? I started this thread to discuss the domestic Police State.

 

[hornadylnl]

Remind me why are we talking about foreign invasions? I started this thread to discuss the domestic Police State.

Somebody mentioned the government using the UN and that our military would prevent it. I'm saying they are powerless to do so.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Somebody mentioned the government using the UN and that our military would prevent it. I'm saying they are powerless to do so.

And I'm saying the UN doesn't have the ability to invade.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ammo and arms apart for a reason. That one case of ammo is for security rounds, nothing more. I always knew where our ASPs were, and if they were emptied where would they put it all?


Tell me who has the ability to invade the US? Other than a miltia's wet dream, nobody has the ability to do it.

How hard would it be for someone to have all the asp's emptied out? That way, if those in charge of the asp were sympathetic to the people, they wouldn't have ammo to give to the units anyway.

 

[hornadylnl]

And I'm saying the UN doesn't have the ability to invade.

I'm not saying they'll invade. I believe they'll be invited by our government with open arms.

 

[rambone]

We need not look further than our own Government for an imminent threat to our liberty. The U.N. are like the boyscouts compared to what Congress would do to us on their own volition.

They want to turn this country into a prison compound complete with prison guards, fences, & surveillance. I presume that a citizen's claim to private property becomes irrelevant when the government wants to send out immigration patrols or build a fence through it. All in the name of protecting the homeland.

 

[rambone]

Even our own Dan Burton loves this enough to sponsor it. And look at the rest of these Republican sellouts.




Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
Mo Brooks [R-AL5]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Dan Burton [R-IN5]
Ken Calvert [R-CA44]
Francisco Canseco [R-TX23]
John Carter [R-TX31]
Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Mike Coffman [R-CO6]
Rick Crawford [R-AR1]
Jeff Duncan [R-SC3]
John Duncan [R-TN2]
Renee Ellmers [R-NC2]
Chuck Fleischmann [R-TN3]
John Fleming [R-LA4]
Bill Flores [R-TX17]
Trent Franks [R-AZ2]
Elton Gallegly [R-CA24]
Chris Gibson [R-NY20]
Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6]
Paul Gosar [R-AZ1]
Ralph Hall [R-TX4]
Doc Hastings [R-WA4]
Walter Herger [R-CA2]
Lynn Jenkins [R-KS2]
Bill Johnson [R-OH6]
Peter King [R-NY3]
Steve King [R-IA5]
Raúl Labrador [R-ID1]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
James Lankford [R-OK5]
Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9]
Cynthia Lummis [R-WY]
Tom McClintock [R-CA4]
Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R-WA5]
Candice Miller [R-MI10]
Gary Miller [R-CA42]
Jeff Miller [R-FL1]
Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
Devin Nunes [R-CA21]
Ted Poe [R-TX2]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
Dennis Rehberg [R-MT]
Edward Royce [R-CA40]
Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Steve Southerland [R-FL2]
Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]
Rob Wittman [R-VA1]
Rob Woodall [R-GA7]
Donald Young [R-AK]

 

[badwolf.usmc]

How hard would it be for someone to have all the asp's emptied out? That way, if those in charge of the asp were sympathetic to the people, they wouldn't have ammo to give to the units anyway.

There are thousands of buildings and bunkers in which ammo is stored all around this country. Even if they all could be emptied, where would they put all that ammo? It would be easier to kill all the rats in New York.

I'm not saying they'll invade. I believe they'll be invited by our government with open arms.

I'm pretty sure you said earlier that the UN would invade. In fact, you asked what the military would do if we were invaded, twice.

The military answers to the civilian government, and does what they tell them to do. It was set up that way by the founding fathers, and it has worked pretty well so far.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I guess I'm missing something here. As far as I can see, this bill doesn't ban the Constitution. It prohibits the Sec.s of the Interior and Agriculture from getting in the way of securing the border on public lands. It suspends many of their evironmental regs and laws like migratory birds act, safe drinking water act, archeological what nots act, etc.

It reads to me that they don't want BS enviro regs impeding fence building along our borders (Mexico) that they've been running into since they started building the fence a few years ago. They ran into trouble with turtles, graveyards, habitat, and on, and on, and on.

Not trying to pee on anyones leg, just trying to see where the bill text gets us to a ban of the Constitution.

Text of the bill:
H.R.1505 -- National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (Introduced in House - IH)


HR 1505 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1505
To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 13, 2011

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. SMITH of Texas, and Mr. CARTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPEDING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY RELATED TO BORDER SECURITY.

• (a) In General- The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367)) over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

• (b) Authorized Activities- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).

• (c) Clarification Relating to Waiver Authority-

• • (1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any termination date relating to the waiver referred to in this subsection), the waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security on April 1, 2008, under section 102(c)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note; Public Law 104-208) of the laws described in paragraph (2) with respect to certain sections of the international border between the United States and Mexico and between the United States and Canada shall be considered to apply to all sections of the international land and maritime borders of the United States within 100 miles of the international land and maritime borders of the United States for the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security described in subsection (b), including the construction of infrastructure, to achieve the operational control described in subsection (a).

• • (2) DESCRIPTION OF LAWS WAIVED- The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the `Antiquities Act of 1906') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act'), the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-145, 113 Stat. 1711), sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.), the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.), sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467), the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101-628), section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996), Public Law 103-141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.).

 

[jblomenberg16]

Cite anything? How about the INGO Politics forum? I read far more than I post, and what I read depresses me. Everywhere I turn it's "Follow the Constitution, but it doesn't really mean that."

As with any other group, some Tea Partiers will be real Constitutionalists. The majority? Really? Will they not vote for whichever Republican the majority chooses to run, Constitutionalist or not? If so, are they not just Republicans?

I guess I was looking for more than a circular reference back to INGO. No offense to anyone (myself included) but I don't know that INGO is a reputable source for political analysis. What it is though is very good critiquing of several different platforms from a very realistic every day Joe's perspective...which isn't always credible political review. In otherwords, a press release from the Tea Party, an editorial by a credible political analyst etc, would be what I'm looking for.

My experience again is only local to Southern Indiana, but has been that they've backed the candidates (typically republican) that have been most constitutionally based, and not necessarily the most popular. That being said, I know that once the primaries are complete and the tickets are set, they have shifted support to the individual on the ballot that best represents the Constitution, and in some cases will align against someone who clearly against it.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I guess I'm missing something here. As far as I can see, this bill doesn't ban the Constitution. It prohibits the Sec.s of the Interior and Agriculture from getting in the way of securing the border on public lands. It suspends many of their evironmental regs and laws like migratory birds act, safe drinking water act, archeological what nots act, etc.

It reads to me that they don't want BS enviro regs impeding fence building along our borders (Mexico) that they've been running into since they started building the fence a few years ago. They ran into trouble with turtles, graveyards, habitat, and on, and on, and on.

Not trying to pee on anyones leg, just trying to see where the bill text gets us to a ban of the Constitution.

Text of the bill:
H.R.1505 -- National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (Introduced in House - IH)


HR 1505 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1505
To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 13, 2011

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. SMITH of Texas, and Mr. CARTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL


To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPEDING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY RELATED TO BORDER SECURITY.

• (a) In General- The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall not impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve operational control (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public Law 109-367)) over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

• (b) Authorized Activities- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).

• (c) Clarification Relating to Waiver Authority-

• • (1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any termination date relating to the waiver referred to in this subsection), the waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security on April 1, 2008, under section 102(c)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note; Public Law 104-208) of the laws described in paragraph (2) with respect to certain sections of the international border between the United States and Mexico and between the United States and Canada shall be considered to apply to all sections of the international land and maritime borders of the United States within 100 miles of the international land and maritime borders of the United States for the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security described in subsection (b), including the construction of infrastructure, to achieve the operational control described in subsection (a).

• • (2) DESCRIPTION OF LAWS WAIVED- The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the `Antiquities Act of 1906') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act'), the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-145, 113 Stat. 1711), sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.), the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.), sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467), the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101-628), section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996), Public Law 103-141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.).

Thanks for doing the research...I'll have to read up a bit more to catch all the details.

 

[rambone]

Not trying to pee on anyones leg, just trying to see where the bill text gets us to a ban of the Constitution

This law strengthens unconstitutional concepts like "National parks" and the "Department of Homeland Security." Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution doesn't allow for these things. I also think that there is a big constitutional problem with the Feds declaring their supremacy going 100 miles into the sovereign states. Some states, like Florida, are entirely canvassed by this ridiculously large region. The Feds are pushing so that their influence is everywhere and anywhere, and the states are irrelevant.

 

[firehawk1]

I'm not saying they'll invade. I believe they'll be invited by our government with open arms.

THIS was my point in my post.

 

[theweakerbrother]

You mean they don't already have total police state power?

 

[RockofStrength]

You mean they don't already have total police state power?

In principle, possibly. The key is not merely to vote the minimum power to oneself in order to subjugate people, but rather to make one's control so profound and constant that the idea of being subjugated becomes more a change on legal documents rather than a hostile overthrow of liberty.