I worry that I know that answer:
Posted on 12/31/2011 10:52:10 PM PST by Wiz-Nerd
According to the ACLU, President Barack Obama just signed one of the most controversial bills into law since the Patriot Act. The sad part is that neither the House nor the Senate nor Obama seemed to think it was all that controversial, as it passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate, and the president just signed it (even though he had at one time threatened to veto).
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
What constitutes “an associated force”?
“”Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”””
I know you’ve always known what you wanted but your game is up - because now we know it too!
JOHN GALT
I worry that I know that answer:
What is really disturbing is not knowing if POTUS no 45 will do anything to overturn any of Barry’s actions. They all seem to be on the same page at this point.
me too.
May God save us from these idiots.
Do your homework, start with reading the full article. In the article it tells you the main concern is Section 1021. It tramples your 5th Amendment Rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA
Proof Obama will sign NDAA (S.1867) 1031 “American Citizen Indefinite Detention Law”
Senator Levin told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
Be careful - Posting radical ideas like that will bring you scrutiny from about a dozen alphabet agencies.
Martial Law + NDAA Snatch & Grab
http://youtu.be/iWlajbUCz8Y
No need.
As I understand the special provisions of the 2012 NDAA, the next President can now simply lock Obama up, indefinitely, without trial.
Irony can be so sweet.
The radical Islamic terrorists destroyed the twin towers in an attack on our financial system, knowing if they brought it down it could, in their eyes, bring down the USA.
That was terrorism, no one would argue with that. Well except some assorted leftists, Obama and his unrepentant terrorist buddy, Billy Ayers.
Obama even fits the profile of a terrorist even more that his name sake, Obama bin Laden.
He is systematically chopping away at out financial system (as well as the tree of liberty) by his manipulation of money and his unbridled spending and borrowing.
In 2008, while running for president, he vilified GW Bush for raising the debt ceiling. It was a horrible thing to do back then, he opposed it.
He also complained about Bush raising the deficit 4b dollars in 8 yrs.
Well guess what, he has raised it that much in just 3 years!
Still people are still mesmerized by him and he has bought a huge voter base.
Well it passed by a huge majority through Congress, including Congressmen and Congresswomen whom Freepers by and large respect as true conservative defenders of US liberty. Are they all traitors too, or maybe this bill doesnt actually give the govt more power to detain citizens than they have already had.
Got lead?
I and I really would've thought his dad would've made an even bigger stink of it on the campaign trail. I wonder how the Pauls voted.
Ron Paul may have missed a golden opportunity to firmly establish himself as the nominee. Instead of going around bashing America, why didn't he use this legislation as a campaign theme?
Or did he and Big Media chose to ignore it?
| COME AND GET IT HUSSEIN JUNIOR |
http://youtu.be/dc4BcG2OzkI
Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law
http://youtu.be/z8bbuMQLlqs
Paul says the NDAA is the biggest story nobody is talking about. He calls the act really bad, very dangerous, and says that it repeals the 5th amendment.
Ron Paul gets asked about the NDAA at a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on December 19, 2011.
It is just not getting real media coverage...
This is it. This was the final piece to set in motion absolute tyranny.
Not intentionally.
While Bachmann didn’t vote at all last time, nor did Ron Paul, because they were busy campaigning:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932&sort=vote
I can’t understand why Bachmann, who voted against it in the past voted FOR it in May, and so did Duncan Hunter, who did 3 tours in the M.E., including Fallujah.
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/375
Does anybody know WHY they voted for it, particularly Bachmann?
Splendid idea. No warrant. No hearing. No habeas corpus. No trial. Simple. Clean. And a perfect test of the provision's constitutionality!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.