One More Reason to Move to Montana

It’s not like you really need one.

Yes, I know that it’s cold up there, but these people are serious about the US Constitution and individual rights. And, the fact that there really aren’t that many people up there… well, it’s perfect for anti-social types like yours truly.

Why am I all excited?

Montana is about to issue (or die trying) a recall of their Federal elected officials in Washington D.C. because they voted for that obscene piece of legislation that is the 2012 version of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.

I hate the cold. I really do, but Montana looks like the warmest place to be when Omega Shock happens. I certainly wouldn’t want to live near anyone who thinks that this latest version of the NDAA is a good idea.

I mean, it’s your NEIGHBORS who will be your biggest friends, or your worst enemies, when it all comes tumbling down. And, neighbors in Montana seem like good people to be around.

Think about it.

Here’s this from the Digital Journal:

NDAA Vote Could Force Recall of Montana Senators, Congressman

By Christine Mattice
Dec 27, 2011

On Christmas Day, Montanans decided to give their Congressional district a gift they won’t soon forget— a notice of possible recall of the Senators and one Congressman who voted for the controversial, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The recall effort was started by William Crain, an artist, and by Stewart Rhodes, an attorney and national president of the organization, The Oath Keepers. Their intentions are to oust Senators Max Baucus (D) and Jonathan Tester (D) as well as Representative Denny Rehberg (R) from office for voting for a bill that, many say, decimates America’s Bill of Rights. Montana is one of only 9 states that allow for recall of members of its federal congressional delegations based on “violations of oath of office” among other issues. (The other 8 states that allow such recalls are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin). In their press release, Rhodes (a former staffer of Rep. Ron Paul) said:

These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It’s not about the left or right, it’s about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization.

Will this Recall Work?

Whether or not this recall will work is unknown. For instance, New Jersey’s federal recall attempt (on another issue) was struck down by a federal judge when the judge ruled that the Federal Constitution did not permit states the power to recall Senators. However, the Constitution of the United States allows (by not excluding) the right to recall both members of the Senate and of the House. After all, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution reads:

The powers not…prohibited…are reserved to the states…or to the people.

Although the right of recall was previously struck down, it has never been taken to a federal court. However, if there’s one person who could take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court (if need be) it would be Stewart Rhodes.

Read the whole article here.


I’m tellin’ ya’. If I was stuck in the US… I’d move to Montana.


1 thought on “One More Reason to Move to Montana”

  1. Re: Multi-State Recall Petition of Congressman who voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT / consider the following:

    Is the Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012) More Threatening to Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS) That Suspended Provisions In the Reich Constitution That Protected German Citizens’ Civil liberties? If the answer is “Yes” Congress has passed Fascist Legislation.

    Compare: Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY DECREES stated time limits that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security; note that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s passed National Defense Authorization Act—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody, even for being a mere “Belligerent.” Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. U.S. Government can now arbitrarily deem anyone a “Belligerent.” Compare below The NAZI Government 1933 Decrees with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Under the passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could some Americans be (Retroactively) subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider that most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated have done in the past—perhaps illegal.

    Alarmingly both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are broadly vague—what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting or aiding terrorists; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act.

    History Repeats Itself: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared, and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention.

    Is The Defense Authorization Act Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of passed NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) have in the past supported or aided terrorists; provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT!

    It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention. Compare below: Hitler’s Laws that might appear mild when set side by side with the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.
    GERMANY Preliminary Compilation of Selected Laws, Decrees, and Regulations:



    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reich marks.

    Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6

    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President
    Reich Chancellor
    Reich Minister of the Interior Reich Minister of Justice


Leave a Comment