Breaking News - Obama Signs Martial Law Executive Order

page: 9
77
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pegasi51
 


Clean what up?

What NEEDS to be cleaned up is the thread-title.
After that, you can address what is, or what is not, a "worthy response to a legitimate concern."




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
But of course it won't be.
This faulty thread-title has generated, as of right now, five "diggs."

Good luck cleaning it up.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by aspx
 


Ron Paul:"What if the American People Knew the Truth"?
www.youtube.com...

Map of FEMA camps:
current.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


www.youtube.com...
this is was was sent to me take it for what you want. But I am concerned.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Lil Drummerboy]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 
Being as you are quoting biblical scripture here to support your post, may I suggest that you go and read Daniel 11:37? It plainly says there that the antichrist does not love the God of his "fathers", which since that christianity and judaism are both older than islam, would mean that the anti-christ is and must be a "jew". The jews and christians will accept no other person to fill the position of this high of a power.

So, unless Obama is a "jew", he is "not" the anti-christ. Now before you start bashing me thinking I am not a believer nor a christian, let me make this perfectly clear: I am a true and whole-heartedly believer in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost! I love the Lord, and I am a very devout christian! I will be proud to have my head chopped off to prove that satan is NOT the God I serve when the time comes! I fear not the one who can put me to my first death, for that is temporary, but I do fear the one who can put me to my second death, for it is permanent!



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 





Once again, the States already have no authority in these matters.


Not true.
Wikipedia sums it up nicely:


The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[4]

With the consent of state governors, members or units of state National Guard may be appointed or deployed as federally recognized armed force members in active or inactive service.





The issue here is how you want to term "Martial Law"


Martial Law has already been defined.

General Orders no. 100




The way I see Martial Law is troops on the streets enforcing order.


Not true.




The semantical difference here becomes whether or not the President actually "declares" Martial Law.


The President does not need to declare Martial Law. Martial Law is in effect when certain conditions are in effect.

You need to read the link I posted.





At least this requires the counsel of 10 Governors in support.


The 10 Governors have nothing to do with Martial Law. This Order has nothing to do with Martial. It has to do with the change in who is in control of the National Guard.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


Of course... I am concerned as well.
Afterall, when the Constitution was framed, the Brits didn't have tanks.

Our Government now has Tanks. Yet I cannot have one.

This is a concern. The forefathers meant that we have the right to bear THE SAME ARMS that the Government has. This has been manipulated to the point that they are now wanting to tell us that we can't have semi-auto weapons of any kind....

But what I am getting at is that they can never actually remove them. They can never go beyond that precipice of saying NO MORE.
If they do, it will be blood spilled on the streets.

Or maybe they CAN. I don't know. Afterall, in the UK they can still own some weapons, and maybe this is all they need. To restrict us to shotguns and single-shot rifles... but I would like to think that there are A LOT of people who own REAL weapons who UNDERSTAND that the Constitution was framed with the 2nd amendment right to bear arms as a response to tyrannical Government in mind.

Afterall, we were separating ourselves from the Brits in the first place who swear allegiance to someone who was not elected to their authority, but granted it through birth (barbaric, in my opinion)... Of course they would yield their ability to enjoy the same technology as those who were somehow "granted it".

I don't see the US as being similar to the UK in any way.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 

If you're in the NG, then I am assuming you're in the army? If so, don't you remember when you swore in what you swore in to under the constitution? According to the constitution, you are taking an oath to protect america against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Now, if you know your brother is not a terrorist, then you do not have to legally obey that direct order from any person who gives it. That's UCMJ law! But you better be dang sure that you know what you are talking about concerning your brother, or both of you will be in the brig.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I read this document, as it stands and this is how I would interpert it:
1) The US, and the provences that are unders its jurisdiction will be divided into 10 parts, with 1 govenor from that area to sit on a council, including those who are in charge with the defense of the country to determine the proper course of action.
2) That at least 2 to 5 govenors would be of the opposite party as directed by the Executive order, so that means there should be 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans sitting on the council, that would make recomendations to the President on the security of the country, including how and when to deploy resources, men, equipment and supplies. And those Govenors would be appointed by the President of the United States to sit on this council, though it will not be they who are in charge, rather I believe the head of Homeland Security will be in charge overall over this council.
Now here is what I believe it would be. I do not believe it is a Martial Law order, or a precursor to such. I do believe that this is a bad idea and a redundent order for the following reasons: 1) I was under the impression that the department of Homeland Security along with the FBI was responsible for the safety of the United States of America. By forming this council, the President is in short stating that those 2 departments can not handle the responsiblity for such. 2)The only person who can best determine the safety and security of a particular state is the govenor of that state. That means that the Govenor of California, for example, can only speak for his state, not for the state of Arizona or Nevada, or Hawaii, or Oregon, as he would not know what they need or the problems or resources they would require for such. 3) I think that the only thing this will do is to bring either political pressure or political favor to those who would serve on this council, and there is no provision for what to do if the govenors just flat out refuse due to cost and time constraints.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pumpkinorange
Map of FEMA camps:
current.com...


except when you start looking at those so called "FEMA camps" you find one is only a chimney, which they plan to fit 15,000 people into! Others just do not exist at all!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Heh, I guess you could argue the entire matter on interpretation... But that is what the Supreme Court is for.
I really don't wish to get into the matter right now. However, if you will grant me a reprieve of about 20 hours, I promise to come back to this very thread and illustrate how Posse Comitatus is directly applicable to Martial Law.
Furthermore, how Posse Comitatus has already been broken, through precident, by our previous President and make a legitimate argument towards the fact that this move, by Obama is actually a reversal of sorts against what is already on the books of law and of a step in the "right" direction. (right in my eyes)

If I cannot meet these conditions tomorrow afternoon, I will gladly concede every foolish point I have tried to establish through memory alone here on this thread this evening.
But, I would respectfully ask you to hold yourself to the same standard.

An accord?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
or both of you will be in the brig.

Thank you for your reply. I'm not in any service, I was speaking hypothetically, or metaphorically. I imagined as if I was, and was told to do as stated earlier. I get the gist of what you're saying, only, I've never served or have been sworn in. So I'm still uneducated as to what I'm sworn to do...Except for the common sense, I'd likely be shot myself, for there wouldn't be room in the brig.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RcknShdw
 





As a pastor's son there is one thing I've always been taught about the "end of the world": No one knows when the end will come. No one can guess it, no one knows, nada, zilch. It will happen when EVERYONE least expects it. Therefore, I do not take any stock in the end days theories


I'm not flamming you.
I have to say that iether you or both you and your Pop don't have the full story.
It is written that of the day and the hour only the father knows.

You can know the season. Hence the prophecies.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


LOL...who knows man, nice use of extrapolate :



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted 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]


Oh no, I totally get it.

Guess I am just to vague but then again that is what I was going for.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelMurphy
 


Yeah, who knows, right?
Heh, I'm ready to concede defeat, but it appears that I am going to have to dig up specific examples first.
As I stated, I am ready to do so, but it is going to have to wait for a bit, as I'm about to hit the bed and will be at work from first thing tomorrow...
Anyhow, if I can be granted such a reprieve I will be back in this thread tomorrow afternoon. If not, I'll just discard this thread like many others.

Afterall, I don't need to convince anyone here of any THING. But I'll just file it away in the ole' memory banks and recall it later. Much like I did when Bush was set to declare Martial Law. (convenient how that is never called into question, eh?)

Of course it is always a build up....

Except for the fact that this move takes a step backwards.

Anyhow, yeah, I know the term extrapolate.

Until tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


Well if the prophecy wasn't such a nice fit, I doubt I would be so protective of it's integrety but it's all good. It is what it is take it or leave it.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


This takes a step backwards? I'm going to challenge you to come back and EXTRAPOLATE on that comment further. Until tomorrow fellow Patriot.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


Obama Pushes Antigun Treaty
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadow12
1 more false flag and here comes martial law


Just to recap

Executive Orders From Hell
www.youtube.com...





new topics
top topics
 
77
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join