Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Breaking News - Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order

page: 6
77
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


When you register to vote you lose your power of your voice.

You Register and you loose your power over your straw man.

Straw Man is your corporate name. Look at your divers license and tell me is it in all caps?

If so that is your corporation and when you go into court the people you are defending yourself against, you are defending your corporation.

Voting may seem like it does something, but you either get a right wing or a left wing republican or democrat that doesn't do anything but promise things that will never happen. Obama's first promise was to shut down Gitmo. Guantanamo bay.

What happened to Ron Paul? He was the best Candidate and he got some attention and that was about it.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Quickfix]


Sorry, lost me.



When you register to vote you lose your power of your voice.

Yet, I still command some degree of attention in any gathering I attend. My letters are still published in papers and I can influence conversations on forums like this. How has registering to vote cause a loss of 'voice'. Same with the 'lose power over straw man'.

I presume this is in reference to party selected nominees etc. But how does my voter registration have any positive or negative impact on these things?

Drivers license all in caps? Wha?

As for Gitmo, he has been trying. But the Con side of things has been squealing and fighting that at every front. I suspect in good part because all the things that actually went on in there will become subject to the full spotlight treatment. I have no doubt though that it will be closed once enough leverage is found.

As for Ron Paul: You will have to talk to the Cons. They galvanized the religious fundie voters who pretty much booed him off the stage whenever they got the chance. All the while they funneled millions to the "Cranky old man" and his "Beauty Pageant" cohort.

As for this 'martial law' thing. I am not seeing anything in it that allows martial law on it's own merit. Looks like a placement of a committee who would in turn act as a planning group for emergencies.

I believe Martial Law is something that is constitutionally forbidden by the U.S. Constitution anyway.


Sheep Vote, they think they can change the system by voting, but nothing ever changes.

The Bush Administration declared an emergency when 9/11 happened so in times of emergencies they can do whatever they want.

The Free Masons are group of people from the time when Jesus was around. I.E. Money Changers, Pharasees, Sagisees, and Priests.

They are now the courst systems we have today.

The Free Masons use manipulation of words and documents so people don't know what they are reading.

Most people aren't Lawyers so Reading and Writing is very uncommon amongst people anymore.

That is why they need a Lawyer to defend them in court, which the name they are defending is your name in all caps.

like my name is John James Doe, not JOHN JAMES DOE or JOHN J. DOE.

And Where do you reside? Are you a California Res-Ident?

I do not reside anywhere, I reside here *points at self*

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Quickfix]




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
1 more false flag and here comes martial law



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Martial law could happen in three to five years. Why? Our economy. We have astronomical debt of 107 trillion. Our dollar is on the slippery slope to destruction. The first sign you see of a dollar collapse is a failed treasury auction. our entire economy is saturated with debt. our dollar is backed by nothing. china and hong covered more then half of the increase in treasury bonds to the public in 2006,22%.in 2009 it went down to 9%.our dollar is going to collapse and the elites want this. our military first is too small to occupy all the cities and rural areas. and second many men in law enforcement and in the military took oaths(oathkeepers) to not fire upon the citizenry. so half of the military will defect to the militias and freedom fighters. then washington will then send in the UN "peacekeepers" in to restore "order". its all going to end bloody. the soviets were ready for there collapse, our society is not. it is going to end bad. ten years ago the thought of a civil war was preposterous. now we are talking about secessionism and protecting our gun rights. ten years ago people who said our dollar is grave straits were laughed and called crazy. now more people are worried about our debt. we are going face economic,financial collapse,martial law,civil war, an UN occupiers. sad.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I apologize if this has already been mentioned. I just didn't want to read all of the pages as I believe this story is being blown WAY out of proportion.

Was it not Bush who signed an exec. order abolishing the need for the President to convene with ALL 50 Governors in order to declare Martial Law? Meaning that the President could declare Martial Law himself, for nearly any reason he chose?

If that is the case, then this is a step back in the right direction. There is no problem, in my eyes, with the President taking counsel with the Governors of the States in regards to such a serious issue as Martial Law.

I chalk this one up as a good move for Obama. Troop movements within the confines of the US is a serious issue and one that should be approached with levelheaded discussion.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by JayinAR]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:13 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.

Yeah right.


The really really sad part is you actually believe in revelations. Well I hope you are male and a virgin otherwise you burn on earth with the rest of us........or didn't you read that bit!!!!!!!!!!! (female jehova witnesses obviously haven't)



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kyle43
 


Your whitehouse.gov link is broken. I would love to see the pdf file.

is their any other sources that has the pdf file?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
I apologize if this has already been mentioned. I just didn't want to read all of the pages as I believe this story is being blown WAY out of proportion.

Was it not Bush who signed an exec. order abolishing the need for the President to convene with ALL 50 Governors in order to declare Martial Law? Meaning that the President could declare Martial Law himself, for nearly any reason he chose?

If that is the case, then this is a step back in the right direction. There is no problem, in my eyes, with the President taking counsel with the Governors of the States in regards to such a serious issue as Martial Law.

I chalk this one up as a good move for Obama. Troop movements within the confines of the US is a serious issue and one that should be approached with levelheaded discussion.
[edit on 12-1-2010 by JayinAR]


Hi Jay in AR

Well stated.

As usual, reason is not part of this equation. I read it and felt what you did. It Strengthens States Rights.

That is one of the higge pins of the conservative/patriot/ Tea Party/ Birthers
But there is no way you can get them to see it for what it is.
As long as there are words there, they will twist them to fit a talking point.

Peace

Ziggy Strange

[edit on 12-1-2010 by ziggystrange]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
This seems like a simple admin accomodation which is creating an advisory body of state governors who may be called on to make rational decisions based on a particular situation. On the face of it, it sounds fairly democratic and not centralized, a governorial think tank



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Civil support?
I do believe the north american union is going to go into effect and when the people protest they will be beaten into submission. Population control is commenced......Thennn...I'm scared......



Or, maybe the president is going to kick the world bank out and institute an american controlled currency where the money is lent without interest and we quit selling off our recourses and become totally self sufficient. Everyone is fed sheltered and educated. Where we work to raise the standard of living beyond anything ever known. Everything is built to last and technology advances human kind instead of taking away incomes they give a shorter work day, week, month. We all work toward a common goal with more time to spend with our families and friends. We find solutions instead of making laws. Were we help each other up instead of stepping on each other clawing our way to the top....





I bet it's the latter. LOL.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

The problem here is that a "solution" is seemingly created for a nonexistent problem. Look at the priorities our federal government has. Who really is controlling the puppet?
Also, the huge problems we have are not even discussed, NOR any attempt is made to solve them.
We are in free fall, economically. Who cares? Do you get the feeling that the federal government doesn't really care? I sure as shell do.
Bush is not a patriot. Obama is not a patriot.
They are both employees of the same business, and it is not controlled by the American people.
It is not right/left, Demoncrat/Repugnican, Liberal/Conservate.
Those labels have been rendered meaningless by your propaganda team of professionals know as the mainstream media.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


While you seem to see this particular issue as I do, I completely lost you when you equated conservatives, tea partiers and patriots with people who are unable to read an issue for what it is and make up their own minds.

You are acting like a hypocrite, quite frankly, when you paint reason as an issue that is foreign to those who you disagree with.

I did star your post however, as you are correct, this is an issue that strengthens state's rights...
A conservative ideal, by the way... and one that would be cherrished by any patriot or tea partier.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
isnt this how hitler started out? a few hush hush executive orders and he was on his way....

does obama realize what he's involved with, i wonder.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
isnt this how hitler started out? a few hush hush executive orders and he was on his way....

does obama realize what he's involved with, i wonder.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


A non-existant problem?

Do you not have a problem with the President, until now, being able to direct troops about the country, at his will, WITHOUT having to convene with at least A FEW Governors?
Before Bush was in office the President simply could not make such a decision without the consent of ALL of the Governors AND the Congress...

Until now, a President could have sent the National Guard into your own hometown without having to account for it to anyone.

*I* personally, consider that a problem... And this decision, a move back in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Symetra
 


So in a "best case" scenario states are giving up their sovereign rights to comply with federal mandates?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelMurphy
 




The States gave up those rights freely and unopposed under Bush.


On a side note, I can't believe the short attention-spans of many of ATS' membership.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

If Bush created a "problem", it was by executive order, and it could simply have been undone by executive order.
The "state" is us. We are the ones that need to be empowered. If Obama is truly trying to empower the states, he is trying to empower us, you and I.
I do not see that.
We have to see our federal government for what it is...at some point, folks.
Think, blood sucking squid.
That works for me.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Hi, I just wanted to post this because I thought the PDF looked ultra fake and I didn't see this link posted in the thread anywhere.

LINK WHITEHOUSE.GOV

This is legit.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I hear ya Stewie!

It's no longer by the people for the people. It no longer a choice.

They are all on the same team.

"If you give me control of the currency, I care not who makes the laws."



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
Hi, I just wanted to post this because I thought the PDF looked ultra fake and I didn't see this link posted in the thread anywhere.

LINK WHITEHOUSE.GOV

This is legit.


Hi METACOMET

Is it any different from what I quoted?

I went to the PDF link and copied from there.

Thank you

Ziggy Strange






top topics



 
77
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join