Breaking News - Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order

page: 7
77
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Shortsighted.

This is nothing more than yet ANOTHER paranoid rant by those who believe that the Government is hell-bent on declaring Martial Law.

If you remember the story that I have told, you will surely remember all of the paranoia that followed as people swore up and down Bush was going to declare Martial Law. Afterall, he wrote it so that he could, so that must have meant that he was going to, right?
Well, he didn't.
Now, it is more of the same, but this time the apparent conspiracy is going to have to grow some as Obama has written it into law that he CANNOT do so without at least gaining the support of 10 more co-conspirators!

Yeah, the Government is an out-of-control monster that is only looking to swindle us out of more and more money... but do you honestly believe that any President is literally planning to throw the entire country assunder?!


It would have been done two years ago, if ever.




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Butch67
 

And,
it doesn't have to be that way. I see the federal government as that rich relative that wants to tell everyone how to live, and everyone looks up to because he/she has all of the money.
Except, the rich relative stole all of that money from the family...
I say, screeeew you.
I can do without the feds, period.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

Well, I see progress. An "out of control beast" is in our midst.

This executive order is another clue as to what the president considers his priorities.
Simple statement.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
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.



Thank you for the star, and the post.

I would be hypocritical, if I acted the way I object to others acting. I'm guilty of having debated many here, and seeing a pattern in method, as well as causation, and behavior.

My position, is consistent and my characterization is accurate based on my observations.

While I agree it's a generalization, it is not hypocrisy.

I would add "so called" before Patriot. The rest is my opinion, and I stand by it.

Ziggy Strange

[edit on 12-1-2010 by ziggystrange]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


And I see it as a move back towards where we should be.
And as a good thing.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


The generalization is what makes it hypocritical.
As you see, I am a conservative, a tea party member and a patriot.
Yet I understand reason.

Your generalization is hypocritical, as your reason has failed with your very post.

Afterall, you said that I could not reason.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


The generalization is what makes it hypocritical.
As you see, I am a conservative, a tea party member and a patriot.
Yet I understand reason.

Your generalization is hypocritical, as your reason has failed with your very post.

Afterall, you said that I could not reason.


you haven't added much to the conversation my fellow patriot other than the typical "you are all paranoid ect ect"

you state that if martial law would have been declared it would have been 2 years ago. Why do you believe this? 2 years ago I don't think the super banking powers were finished milking the US dry. This is a big deal, or it would not have been signed. There IS a reason for this. Now I am NOT saying that there is going to be a complete military takeover of the USA, it could very well be preparing for a natural disaster or epidemic. BUT the fact that Obama is consolidating the states into a council of 10 leaves many questions and my main question is WHY. These council members will most likely receive extra powers and I wouldn't doubt if the people in their "region" have to answer to them in the case of martial law.

I could see this as a good thing though, what if Obama is doing this because he knows the 50 states will be falling apart soon. I'd rather be a apart of a 5 state coalition that is defined when the SHTF rather than just being dependent on my own state.

still many questions to be answered



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kyle43
 


I haven't added anything to the discussion?!!

Are you f-ing kidding me?

Okay, lets say that Obama never created or signed this Executive Order! In that case.... wait for it...
...

..
He could have just declared it on a whim... without having to convene with ANYONE!

Holy smokes!



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
"In politicts, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planed that way."
F.D.Roosevelt
President of the USA 1933-1945

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Maybe this is the motivation behind this Executive Order:



(d)
synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States


Read the preamble to the Order:


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008


So what additional authority was gained through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008.

Section 1822 states this:


The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.


However it looks like the reason for this section is due to a previous section 1812:


(a) Joint Activity of the Department of Defense- Subsection (a) of section 10501 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking `joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force' and inserting `joint activity of the Department of Defense'.


So if I am understanding correctly, the National Guard is now the tool of the Department of Defense.

Sec 1813 under (a)(1)


(13)(A) Assisting the Secretary of Defense in facilitating and coordinating with the entities listed in subparagraph (B) the use of National Guard personnel and resources for operations conducted under title 32, or in support of State missions.


I couldn't find where is specified specific operations in tilte 32 of the U.S. Code. Maybe they are refering to this?

TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 9 > § 904 Homeland defense duty


(a) Full-Time National Guard Duty.— All duty performed under this chapter shall be considered to be full-time National Guard duty under section 502 (f) of this title. Members of the National Guard performing full-time National Guard duty in the Active Guard and Reserve Program may support or execute homeland defense activities performed by the National Guard under this chapter.


So if I am understanding correctly, I think the National Guard is under the sole authority of the Department of defense?

EDIT TO ADD:

This Order seems to have nothing to do with Martial Law. Can anybody explain why anyone would think this would have anything to do with martial law?

[edit on 12-1-2010 by harvib]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Butch67
 


Exactly.

And if you were to ask me to lay money down on this issue, I would wager that *this* was done to not only make a joke out of people who believe this is anything other than a re-strengthening of state's rights, but to also have them over-react, in their ignorance, and label them as terrorists.

Then you'll get your martial law.

But of course, I am probably way out of line here as well.
Truth be told, you can never figure out what the Government is really up to, but I can tell you this - this is a good thing for the States of the Union.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kyle43
 

Empower yourself through your state!!!
You can be on the right side of history. Hail, even Massachusetts is seeing the light.
Don't give up on the constitution. This crap is unconstitutional, and no true patriot, in MY mind, could be for it.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 





I would wager that *this* was done to not only make a joke out of people who believe this is anything other than a re-strengthening of state's rights


No. This is definitely not strengthening state rights. It is an order due to the reassignment of the department whose authority the National Guard now falls under. Read my post above and see what you think.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by harvib]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 

Next, by executive order,
All sheriffs will be under the control of the...
What, CIA?
Homeland Security?
Some other FEDERAL agency?

Thanks for the post, good work.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


It doesn't mention Martial Law specifically, but these mandates sure do suggest it.
So while the title of the thread may be misleading, I can see where it applies.

Maybe the OP should change the title to reflect.

Otherwise, the same argument still holds. This is nothing more than a legal justification of suspension of Posse Comatatus (sp?).
But once again, this has been suspended prior to now by Bush not only through Executive Order but also precident in numerous cases, up to this point.

At least now the President is forcing himself to seek counsel in doing so.

This is still a good thing.

Edit to add - And yes, this is a suspension of said act, but Obama is apparently mandating that any such act be temporary... Which, once again, is a move back to where it should be from where it is now...

Under the admitted guise of 'terrorism' mind you.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by JayinAR]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


The generalization is what makes it hypocritical.
As you see, I am a conservative, a tea party member and a patriot.
Yet I understand reason.

Your generalization is hypocritical, as your reason has failed with your very post.

Afterall, you said that I could not reason.


I concede that I found yet another person that identifies with some of those movements here, who appears to use reason.

It's easy to just say, since you say a generalization is absolutely hypocritical, then you are hypocrite in the context of reason, as that would have to expand the definition of "generalization" to always be hypocritical, and that is outside of the realm of reason. This is just talk, not debate.

However, when you self identify with a group, you do expose yourself to the criticism members of these groups bring upon themselves.

You have demonstrated that you are capable of reason, but perhaps we should explore you ideology before we accept your opinion as more than an opinion, and your capacity for reasoning as a given.

I have not debated you in the past. I invite you to present your ideology on a thread where it is not off topic.

Your thread, or mine, you pick.

If you choose to, I will respond. If you don't then we will not debate.

I disagree with your position, and your characterization.

Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


Well, in order to do so, I would need to understand what it is you disagree with in regards to any of the categories I have labelled for myself.

And as long as it is not in the debate forum, I will gladly participate and argue towards my ideals.

(I won't debate in the debate forum because I cannot allot the time necessary to actually complete a debate under this site's rules)

And you can create the thread.
Make an argument. I'll participate.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 





but these mandates sure do suggest it.


How?




This is nothing more than a legal justification of suspension of Posse Comatatus


Again how?




This is still a good thing.


I think the executive order itself is relatively insignificant. However the reason behind it is a great thing if you believe that the states should hold no sole authority of any military forces within their state. I believe that is what has changed.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Butch67
 


Exactly.

And if you were to ask me to lay money down on this issue, I would wager that *this* was done to not only make a joke out of people who believe this is anything other than a re-strengthening of state's rights, but to also have them over-react, in their ignorance, and label them as terrorists.

Then you'll get your martial law.

But of course, I am probably way out of line here as well.
Truth be told, you can never figure out what the Government is really up to, but I can tell you this - this is a good thing for the States of the Union.


Invitation retracted.

You have shown your colors with your causation theory, while not outside of the realm of reason, it goes too far for me to care to debate a person that floats it.

Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I see more and more of the constitution being taken away by laws while people sit by wondering why. The rights and freedoms that were fought for by our ancestors in order to get away from the british bankers are being over thrown. Our reason for coming to this land was to be free from the corruption of the banker elite. It was Jefferson who started giving it away and he Knew it, apologized for it, Told the people about it. Yet we still haven't gotten it back to fixing it. This country has all the resources it needs to be self sufficient. Why do we let it be sold and pondered wasted. It's about greed! If we ever get the world bankers out and the money controlled by the people again with today's technology. Wow. We could raise the standard of living to the like this world has never seen.





new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join