Breaking News - Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 77 times


reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 12:35 PM by whitewave
Originally posted by liveandletlive
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term "State" has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and

(b) the term "Governor" has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).


Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 USC 101.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:

(15) The term ‘‘terrorism’’ means any activity that—
(A) involves an act that—
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially
destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources;
and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

(5) “Governor” means the chief executive of any State.


I don’t understand how “the term "State" has the same meaning” as “the term terrorism”??


[edit on 12-1-2010 by liveandletlive]


So by their own definition THEY are the terrorists! Our government is guilty of every one of the above listed definitions of terrorist.

Get a rope!



reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 12:43 PM by nixie_nox
reply to post by whitewave



If you read it you would see that they only have 2 year terms. And the governors can't have more then 5 members of one party. Even the chairs each have to be each party. Both parties are equally represented.

So there is a pretty good chance that all states will be at least represented once.


yea, giving those governors an opportunity to talk about the national gaurd and other security concerns is such a huge scary thing.

This is giving the states more power as far as I am concerned.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by nixie_nox]


reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 01:08 PM by Mountainmeg
Originally posted by whitewave
Also noted is the fact that there are more than 10 states so why only 10 governors? Is it for regionalization of the U.S. and abolishing of individual states?

10 regions of the U.S.

So now if any of those pesky states start clamoring on about rights not granted to the Feds, they'll simply no longer be considered "states" but numbered regions answerable to the overlord new Governor?


Aw, dang! I don't wanna be in the region with DC.


reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 01:10 PM by beebs
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to
post by whitewave



If you read it you would see that they only have 2 year terms. And the governors can't have more then 5 members of one party. Even the chairs each have to be each party. Both parties are equally represented.

So there is a pretty good chance that all states will be at least represented once.


yea, giving those governors an opportunity to talk about the national gaurd and other security concerns is such a huge scary thing.

This is giving the states more power as far as I am concerned.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by nixie_nox]


I will have to disagree with you there, for the document says that after the 2 year term they can be reappointed:
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).
The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by
the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of
the same political party. The term of service for each Member
appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member
may be reappointed for additional terms
.


And also, you might have missed that this is an Executive Order, so I see no reason why he would want to increase state power. It seems to me this is a blatant usurpation of state power, because the states are now underneath one of the new Ten Kings in a hierarchy.

Also, to reinforce the president's almost exclusive power granted by this order:

(b) The President shall designate two Members, who
shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as
Co-Chairs of the Council.


Well ATS, lets hope Obama is good deep down, because if he isn't then we will soon see some crazy stuff. Or maybe either way we will... who knows



edit to add: and lets admit, any blabber about it being balanced because it has an equal number of each party is no more than a gimmick...

[edit on 12-1-2010 by beebs]


reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 01:40 PM by ziggystrange
Originally posted by Sky watcher
I told you all he was the Anti-Christ before he was elected and ATS censored every one of my warnings. Well thanks allot, NOW ONLY GOD CAN STOP HIM.

"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. Rev. 17:12

The next thing we will see is a mass terror attack so he can go after the Revolutionist and the Church.


You are confabulating. The anti Christ has no reference to being against the Revolutionists.

Did not the Antichrist prophecy give you many "clues" so you may truly identify the AC? All the clues have to fit like a puzzle for you to be able to ID the AC.

Like he will cure all disease, bring world peace, be an aristocrat, and bunch of other things, that would fool us into feeling sinful comfort? Long before he reveals his true self?

Obama? I don't remember the prophecy that he would be reviled by anyone, just yet. If the prophesy already failed the test, how can you substantiate your theory?

I think you give the President too much credit. If he was the AC then would you not be at cross purposes with the prophecy to out the AC before he does it himself?

Lastly, any one AC trait means nothing according to your own criteria.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

No to mention there have been ....hundreds of AC's identified and so far "none" have gone on to fulfill any of the prophesied miracles etc..

My 2 cents.

Ziggy


reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 01:54 PM by ziggystrange
reply to post by nixie_nox



Nixie - This is giving the states more power as far as I am concerned.

Ziggy - You are absolutely right, that is exactly what it it, but as usual, the very thing some people want to see expanded "States Rights", being expanded, is used to indict the opposition regardless. Nothing new.

Additionally what about the other 40 governors? Why are they not freaking out?

Ziggy
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^