Breaking News - Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order

page: 2
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdJohnAdams
Well I just saw two things on the news that really makes me worry about this bit of news.

First of all, this breaking news involving Morehead NC, hazmat(currently investigating 9 "Punctured" containers holding the "highly explosive PETN used in the foiled detroit attack")

The police have and are going door to door, and forcing people to evacuate....lets hope those containers don't blow up....

Second, I just saw a ticker, about possible plots during the national polls...so beefed up security around the time of those....Weren't tea partiers and followers of the constitution already deemed homegrown terrorist? or something along those lines.
So now the one day real change has a chance to happen to this country, we now have the U.S. gov pulling scare tactics, and intimidating people;which may not be verbal or physical, just the sight will be enough for some I'm sure.

Scary timing....


For in one hour such great wealth has been laid waste!' And every shipmaster and every passenger and sailor, and as many as make their living by the sea, stood at a distance, Rev. 18:17

Terror coming?




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
This is an unusual document for him to sign* imean, why would he need more ogvernors, for a plan he himself, obama is supposed to call out(martial law). I do know/learned, governors i belive have the authority to also call out martial law* Too many citys for one man, the preisdent to keep track of all the time, so the responability is put on in state leader shoulders.
Makes ya wondr if something is coming soon though. H signs an executive order for a handful of more governors to put us all under house arrest, gives billions to Israel and china, has let our boarder guards down, sent many jobs overseas, were in a bad recession, so what does obama do? sign a document saying we have to be inside at a certain time, we are not allowed outside till further notice... me thinks somethings brewing over thier in washington, and it aint good.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

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!



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
yeah WOW! that does make them all terrorists* dosnt it, at least by thier own standards, the lawmakers! geesh, that list above, goes totaly opposite of what government really does...kidnapping people sounds like CIA and big business. influences.. well AIG and franny n maye have had that on congress.... unconstitutional!



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Wow, is this for real? it didn't really sink in until i read through the first page or so myself.

And what is this supposed to mean?:

(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the
Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of
Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member
with authority to act on the Member's behalf, as appropriate to
aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.


Does this mean subcommittees of the already low number of ten? Sounds to me they might not be too comfortable with all ten, but the two Co-chairs he certainly will be comfortable with, and they can pick which in the ten are most faithful.

Anyone else see this angle in the document?

Thanks OP.




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
That 10 number is pretty disconcerting.

just sayin'



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Oh no! Another inocuous executive order that will lead to the end of the world.... ahhh.... ahhhh.... ahhhh....
.
.
.
.
ehh, nothings happened....
.
.
.
2012 is coming ahhh, ahhh, ahhha, ahhh..
.
.
.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
And the reason is...........???

Is anyone here really able to decipher what this edict means?????



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
hmm well, when i was first taught about the NWO, supposedly whats supposed to happen, is technically, on paper, thier isnt suposed to be anymore states* Regions will exist. Wealthy in one region, poor in another, leftover middle calss in another, and so on and so on..i remember a cahrt a guy was showing on this 'tape' i was watching, showing how the united states was supposed too be divided up into regions* how many i cant remeber it was something like 8 or 10...
that could explain why 10 governors, who are suposed to be 50, one for each state, came to being in this manner...kida like king george's rule over us*



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Just an interesting piece that I don't think anyone else has touched on yet, but what about the following:




Members shall serve without compensation for theirwork on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travelexpenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, asauthorized by law.


These guys will be working for free... Does that make a difference?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive

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

(15) The term ‘‘terrorism’’ means any activity that—
(B) appears to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;



By this definition it implies that the Government themselves are in fact terrorists. Governments by their very nature seek to coerce and intimidate the populations they control. Maybe they need to rethink the definitions of this Act. Or maybe that's the Illuminati in-joke.

EDIT: I realised after I'd wrote this that someone else had already bought this point up. Sorry for the double post! But at least I'm not the only one who recognises governments as glorified terror cells!


[edit on 12-1-2010 by Random_Hero10]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
i know i'm not stupid!

but i seem to be missing the excitement here, can someone explain to me in layman's terms WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!

all these terrorism definitions and such do not explain what he signed. beyond appointing these gov. what is this ex. order he signed supposed to DO?

please explain!



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Just thought I'd mention that Rush is even talking about this on the radio today,saying he's having a hard time wrapping his mind around it!

He's wondering if this has to do with Obama's "civilian national security force...just as strong...just as well funded as our military..." that Obama promised in 2008.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I am stupid and need someone to put this in layman's terms . . . section by section lol

Anyone wanna help me?

[edit on 1/12/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
You all better get right with Jesus.

The coming new world order is in the bible and it's being allowed by God. He's tired of this entire abomination called earth.

Only Jesus saves.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
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






top topics



 
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join