The entire United States is now a war zone: S.1867 passes the Senate with massive support

reply to post by whiskeycowboy


The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section (that they belong to Al Queda) does not extend to citizens of the United States.

In other words- you don't need to belong to a terrier group to be detained under this law as a US citizen. IE: Anything goes.

reply to post by purplemer


Lets be fair and tell the turth. S1867 deals with punishment for sex abuse in the mililtary, the sec.'s in question are 1031, 1032, 1033, which deals with american who support and aide terrorist groups, now the you the reader should get a copy of any bill and read the right way, before jumping into the wrong mind set, Now with that said the bill talks about how to deal with sex abuse, and programs to help victums and familys, so if you did not buy, sell, weapons, or make bombs, or protect a terrorist DON't worry about, lets vote these pols out of office, in nov 2012, YES YOU CAN also the Obama Media is playing this so people can cause problems, and then they move in with the FBI, HLS, Oh the reporters who write these storys look for the NUT JOBS in the comments sections of their stories

reply to post by WienelPistor


For that, wait for H.clinton and the U.N. to disarm the US if Obama wins a second term, yep in the pipe line, yes all the NRA members records would be seize, BATF, has a list of all Mil spec weapons in private home including law enforments private guns.

reply to post by purplemer


After much thought, this is the kind of law that would be needed for an "Operation Wetback 3". Just thought I would put that out there.

So where is that municipal officer and Obama apologist Mr.Municipal Govt officer Xcathrdra now to say that USA is not fascist. I hate big govt spokesperson.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
So where is that municipal officer and Obama apologist Mr.Municipal Govt officer Xcathrdra now to say that USA is not fascist. I hate big govt spokesperson.

Are you trying to make a point and add to the discussion or just muddy the waters and try to look witty?

What parts of S 1867 (and how does it equate to President Obama) that offend you and have you worried?