Breaking News - Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 77 times

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:31 PM by Symetra

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:32 PM by LSDomino

the sky is falling the sky is falling!
help help!

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:33 PM by ziggystrange

Originally posted by OrphenFire

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Wow, by their own definition the federal government is a terrorist organization. If the current economic crisis and misappropriation of tax payer dollars doesn't "involve an act that is destructive of key resources and is... AHHHH, wait, I see their loophole. "In violation of criminal laws of the United States..." no mention of Constitutional law or Constitutional rights. OK then, all is well and our government is still okie-dokie!

Uh oh... This is not good at all. If the EO was signed while written with a reference to Paragraph 14 instead of Paragraph 15, then in the future they can legally allow any state and its National Guard to commit acts of terrorism as defined by Paragraph 14.

We might actually be screwed if this EO was actually signed with a reference to the definition of "terrorism". :|

Disambiguation is an art. I have not found the contradiction, but if it was a typo that abrogates the Constitution, it will be fixed as it would make the EO illegal, and null and void.

If you really think the President would sign an executive order that would declare the Fed, and the States, as Terrorists, and get away with it in face of all the opposition he faces, then explain to me how this would somehow strengthen the strangle hold you and others think he has on you?

If you are correct, we deserve it.

Ziggy Strange

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:35 PM by Symetra

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:35 PM by Helmkat

It is the Biblical connotation of 10 that is worrying to me.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Oh my, sort of like finding a Mother Goose connotation!

Gotcha

The whole zero thing still bothers me though.

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:48 PM by ziggystrange

Originally posted by downisreallyup
There are 10 governors most likely because there are 10 EPA regions, and also 10 FEMA regions.

Notice the following map:

EPA Region Map

FEMA Regions

[edit on 12-1-2010 by downisreallyup]

Hi Downisreallyup,

Logic is futile, submit to fear, we are the downtrodden victims of the NWO.

No thing is beyond any interpretation when you rationalize delusion. Criteria is irrelevant. Facts don't count. Chaos rules, no point is hearing truth, it's too late. The wrong party is in power.

He's the NWO/ Anti Christ / Illegal alien / Socialist / Marxist / Nazi / racist / unqualified to be President / scapegoat for every conspiracy, lunatic, and hate group.

The only thing he isn't is POTUS.

"Ye protests too much?"

Everything is suspect in a state of paranoia. Question your family's agenda.

Let's all drink the Kool Aid and follow the paranoid to the cliff. Salvation is at hand.

JUMP

Ziggy

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:51 PM by OrphenFire

Originally posted by ziggystrange
Disambiguation is an art. I have not found the contradiction, but if it was a typo that abrogates the Constitution, it will be fixed as it would make the EO illegal, and null and void.

If you really think the President would sign an executive order that would declare the Fed, and the States, as Terrorists, and get away with it in face of all the opposition he faces, then explain to me how this would somehow strengthen the strangle hold you and others think he has on you?

If you are correct, we deserve it.

Ziggy Strange

I do not believe the POTUS is some malicious, evil illuminati style villain. I think he is merely a puppet to the real people who run this country: the BANKS. As to why anyone would sign an EO into law that defines its intended 10 Governors as "Chief Executive of any State", and then State as outlined prior (terrorism), I cannot fathom anything in my mind that is not dark in nature. This (as long as it remains unfixed) appoints 10 Governors who have the legal right to execute terrorism as defined in Paragraph 15 of Section 2. That scares me. That scares me like nothing I have ever read on ATS or anywhere else.

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:51 PM by Symetra

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:54 PM by ziggystrange

reply to post by OrphenFire

There I agree if a typo is not fixed and a law is created, or applied due to a typo, then yes we are all screwed.

I just don't think it's the case.

If it means what people say here, then you are correct, and we are in agreement.

Peace

Ziggy

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:54 PM by OpTiMuS_PrImE

reply to post by Symetra

more like conspiracy fact, and by the way if you didn't take notice when you signed up on this site were all about some conspiracy here so you know how to EXIT im sure if its not your thing

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:57 PM by randyvs

reply to post by Helmkat

Oh my, sort of like finding a Mother Goose connotation!

not really!

Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:

This tells us that when the forth great kingdom fell, the result would be its division into ten smaller kingdoms which it appears is happening now.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by randyvs]

[edit on 12-1-2010 by randyvs]

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:02 PM by ziggystrange

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by Symetra

more like conspiracy fact, and by the way if you didn't take notice when you signed up on this site were all about some conspiracy here so you know how to EXIT im sure if its not your thing

The Conspiracies being "discussed" have a pro and con sides.

Do you think this place is only for conspiracy believers?

I think what was in mind was to explore, find and discuss, then dispel the BS, and seek the truth.

Ziggy Strange

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:04 PM by OrphenFire

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by OrphenFire

There I agree if a typo is not fixed and a law is created, or applied due to a typo, then yes we are all screwed.

I just don't think it's the case.

If it means what people say here, then you are correct, and we are in agreement.

Peace

Ziggy

I don't even buy into the whole 'oh no the government is reptilian and gonna kill us all and martial law and mind control' crap. I do have something that I think is considered common sense. I clicked this forum just to see what the EO said word for word (because EO's are powerful). On the surface this EO is a very good thing. Just look at these documents that they reference. Compare the relationships of the terms that they have defined in the EO. It can't be an accident. Why did they choose THOSE 2 documents to define their terms?? Why didn't they follow the pattern of those two very documents and define the terms WITHIN the original EO? Something isn't right.

2010 Executive Order

Homeland Security Act of 2002

Robert T. Stafford DisasterRelief and Emergency Assistance Act

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:08 PM by seattletruth

Originally posted by liveandletlive

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

I asked my Dad who's a lawyer. He said that you weren't looking at section 2 of paragraph 15.

"(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States"

That's where it defines "state".. And not the definition of "terrorism".

Sorry, they didn't mess up

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:09 PM by ziggystrange

Originally posted by OrphenFire

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by OrphenFire

I don't even buy into the whole 'oh no the government is reptilian and gonna kill us all and martial law and mind control' crap. I do have something that I think is considered common sense. I clicked this forum just to see what the EO said word for word (because EO's are powerful). On the surface this EO is a very good thing. Just look at these documents that they reference. Compare the relationships of the terms that they have defined in the EO. It can't be an accident. Why did they choose THOSE 2 documents to define their terms?? Why didn't they follow the pattern of those two very documents and define the terms WITHIN the original EO? Something isn't right.

2010 Executive Order

Homeland Security Act of 2002

Robert T. Stafford DisasterRelief and Emergency Assistance Act

Thanks for the response.

Let's find out, and then act.

But as you can see, "here", people just hear, read, and freak out.

They should add validate to the sequence, right before , freak out.

Peace

Ziggy

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:11 PM by ziggystrange

Originally posted by seattletruth

Originally posted by liveandletlive

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

I asked my Dad who's a lawyer. He said that you weren't looking at section 2 of paragraph 15.

"(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States"

That's where it defines "state".. And not the definition of "terrorism".

Sorry, they didn't mess up

Disambiguation tends to shed light on things.

Thank you, you get a star.

Peace

Ziggy

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:12 PM by GorehoundLarry

ANOTHER Obama/Martial Law thread? I was so convinced when Bush left office, we were gonna see these "Martial Law/miltiary/police takeover" threads vanish. I guess it works for every president.

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:13 PM by Quickfix

reply to post by kyle43

Well go out buy some canned goods, bottles of water, top ramen, beans and rice.

And don't forget the ammo you need for protection.

Better get ready quick.

Better safe, then sorry.

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 04:14 PM by ziggystrange

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
ANOTHER Obama/Martial Law thread? I was so convinced when Bush left office, we were gonna see these "Martial Law/miltiary/police takeover" threads vanish. I guess it works for every president.

"Ignorance is bipartisan!, and cares not what it does"

Ziggy Strange