It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There will be NO Marshall Law in October.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by MJND1990
Ok EVERY thread wasn't quite accurate. EVERY thread I've noticed you in. Hows that. Oh and can we PLEASE get back on-topic. BTW I'm not all against you. I agree with you on the train car thread.


Hey, I'm actually not against you either. I was using sarcasm for the folks who love to throw out the "dis-info" agent response whenever you disagree with them. Sorry, wasn't personal


OK its cool. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet. lol. Yea Ill even admit the train car thing was crazy. That's like saying "A black Suburban drove up my street today, it was the FBI plotting to assassinate me!"
Yes it could've been but it's highly unlikely. Anyway back to the topic at hand...




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H
CONGRESS DECLARES MARTIAL LAW 9/27 DURING ECONOMY DEBATE

This dude seems to think otherwise.





Its martial law for CONGRESS. Meaning Stay til the deal is done! It's in no way public marshall law.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Can you provide some kind of a link as to verify what you are saying?

I don't think there is a difference.

According to here: www.usconstitution.net...

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.


Again, can you provide me with information as to the difference between Congressional Martial Law and Presidential or whatever the other one is called?

I hope there really is a difference



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MJND1990
 



Thank you for clearing that up for me .i saw someone had made a thread about the video.........it got trasehd......i couldnt see why it was so offence, so i made another thread with said same vdeo, that to got trashed.

So i posted it here.

thanks again



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MJND1990



I tend to agree with you. I don't rule out the possibility of another faux terrorist attack or convieneint natural disaster, but unless we have that I don't see it happening.

Too many people are expecting it.


Yep. I mean if the NWOs been working at this for hundreds of years to make it gradual they will continue to do that. They never want you to realize whats happening. They want you to think everything's ok. You'll know when their ready for marshall law because the people will be begging for the protection.


Thankfully a lot of people are starting to "wake up" and the 9/11 conspiracies have gotten so much coverage, I think there will be some difficulty this time to get people's blind acceptance.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rizen
Can you provide some kind of a link as to verify what you are saying?

I don't think there is a difference.

According to here: www.usconstitution.net...

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.


Again, can you provide me with information as to the difference between Congressional Martial Law and Presidential or whatever the other one is called?

I hope there really is a difference


www.cbpp.org...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
From reading that, I don't get the sense that it is mutually exclusive.

Meaning, I don't think the declaration of Martial Law ONLY in effect in Congress.

If anything, doesn't the article mean that Martial Law is needed to skip over Rule XIII(6)(a) and that's it.

I don't see where it says Martial Law on the public and Martial Law in Congress are mutually exclusive.

Am I just blind?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rizen
From reading that, I don't get the sense that it is mutually exclusive.

Meaning, I don't think the declaration of Martial Law ONLY in effect in Congress.

If anything, doesn't the article mean that Martial Law is needed to skip over Rule XIII(6)(a) and that's it.

I don't see where it says Martial Law on the public and Martial Law in Congress are mutually exclusive.

Am I just blind?


I think your just trying to see a connection that is'nt there. There two entirely different concepts. Besides if we were under marshall law trust me- you'd know it! Plus I saw that clip before all this OMG! Were doomed speculation, and I never even for a second thought it was the same thing. I recognized the difference from the start.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Ok...

I was just about to pawn off my cat on ebay...

I hope your right.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I'm kind of new here, even tho i've been lurking for a little while. Please have patience with me as I have a question.
Why would the NWO or any government want to exterminate half the population? I mean the population is the entirety of the tax payers. Without tax payers then where would the governments or whoever get thier funding? Seems like they'd want to keep up alive.
Is it because of lack of resources? Current estimates state that there's enough to go around.
Or because a disaster, attack etc would lead to more control by taking away rights? Honestly I dont get that either. It seems like societies that restrict rights dont do all that well in the long run. Think about the former soviet union. Yes there are lots of other repressive regimes in existence today. But it seems like they arnt very prosperous.
maybe I'm missing something. I look forward to reading any responses.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrekFan
I'm kind of new here, even tho i've been lurking for a little while. Please have patience with me as I have a question.
Why would the NWO or any government want to exterminate half the population? I mean the population is the entirety of the tax payers. Without tax payers then where would the governments or whoever get thier funding? Seems like they'd want to keep up alive.
Is it because of lack of resources? Current estimates state that there's enough to go around.
Or because a disaster, attack etc would lead to more control by taking away rights? Honestly I dont get that either. It seems like societies that restrict rights dont do all that well in the long run. Think about the former soviet union. Yes there are lots of other repressive regimes in existence today. But it seems like they arnt very prosperous.
maybe I'm missing something. I look forward to reading any responses.



Well the NWO is comprised of the elite rich of the world. Rotchschilds and Rockefeller are two of them. Combined those two are worth 120 trillion $. That's right TRILLION. There are speculated to be 13 of these families, so you can imagine their wealth. They own EVERYTHING. Banks, media (CNN, Fox Abc etc.) and are the real people in control. The president is just a puppet. These elite run nearly every country on earth. They are the men behind the curtain. There eventual goal is a one world government where everyone has a microchip implant and is a slave to the system. They create chaos and take away rights. They want the people to have NO power to stop them. Decreasing the population is simply to make the people more manigable. Here's a interview with Aaron Russo who was friends with Nick Rockefeller. Well until Aaron died. www.youtube.com...

And heres a brief video explaining the NWO: www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
"Martial Law" in Congress is a completely different thing. Essentially, Congress makes its own rules, so the Speaker has suspended those rules in order to get this bill passed. It may in fact be a very ominous sign, however, as it creates a precedent for Congress to be run like a little dictatorship by the majority party.

BTW, I don't buy the depopulation thing. Smaller groups are harder to control than larger ones. Think American Colonies compared to the U.S. population today. Besides, wealth resides in productive capacity, not money, so those who control wealth would be lessening their own power by reducing capacity, and that is not going to happen.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Excuse me, but how is a larger group easier to control and contain? I, for one, thought that the less people you had to control, the easier it was to dominate them, either through military control, or even MSM. I'm not trying to be mean, or anything, but could you maybe provide some proof that smaller groups are easier to control? Thanks in advance.

Back to the topic.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
It's starting to get funny (as in haha funny, not strange funny).

A congressman SAYS we are now in martial law, and everybody goes "Nah, that's not what he meant!" Orwell was either in with the elite, or had a good way of predicting things.

Why didn't he just say "The rules have been changed" or "The procedures are changed"? No, he said "We are now in martial law". That's his words. But words can mean anything you want them to mean, right?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Thanks OP for showing what this is all about. We are too useful to just dispose of. All this fear mongering bull that a lot of you get deceived into just makes it harder for yourselves and lives. Stop listening to Alex Jones and stop believing every word that comes out of his mouth. A lot of people are there to scare the hell out of you to submission. As i've stated in many threads; do not be afraid. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. To be honest a lot of you are fearing what you aren't sure is going to happen. If Alex Jones was a real help he would be providing solutions instead of scaring the hell out of anyone who is looking for something to believe in.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I will be posting this entry into every thread related to this 'martial law' question.

Yes, the name is alarming, and no, it is not related to civilian day-to-day activities.

But don't breath a heart-felt sigh of relief just yet. There is a reason for the alarming nomenclature..., it is extraordinary that they should invoke this process with blanket immunity, especially since we have no idea what 'extras' will be riding on the final measure.

The 'enforcement' of the expediency is very telling of the intent. I hate to say it, because many of us here at ATS are in the unenviable position of being able to claim, 'We told you so." on the current financial crisis (I would much rather have been wrong); but it looks like some of us will be in that very same position in a matter of weeks, if not days. This 'blanket authority to depart from regular legislative process' can be applied to whatever measure they want, since the declaration of legislative martial law escaped the narrow definition of the bailout.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Are you having this discussion becauses of the announcement of active military missions in the US to begin Oct 1 - by the unit called CCMRF, or sea smurfs?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Has anyone else noticed lately that all the "Everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along" people are people that have just joined?

Let's use an analogy here. If I believed that Brand X company makes the best cars, would I go to a forum about how Brand Y is better, and convince them they are all wrong? What kind of mindset would it take for me to do that?

Look for signs of disinfo agents and paid shills. They are pretty evident once you know what to look for.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Don't mind that thrashee guy.

I completely agreed with your post op, our world elite are going to take their time. They are going to cause people to WANT to be slaves, all the while with everyone believing they are still free.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Has anyone else noticed lately that all the "Everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along" people are people that have just joined?

Let's use an analogy here. If I believed that Brand X company makes the best cars, would I go to a forum about how Brand Y is better, and convince them they are all wrong? What kind of mindset would it take for me to do that?

Look for signs of disinfo agents and paid shills. They are pretty evident once you know what to look for.


I find this hilarious. I've said: There IS a NWO, They DO want to take over the world. Does this sound like something a disinfo agent would say? I'm simply pointing out the facts. 300 or so years so far working on the plan. They are not going to start rushing it now. Like I've said, things will gradually worsen. I dont see marshall law this year. We don't want it enough yet. You'll know when it's coming when you find yourself thinking it's a good idea.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join