Obama *to Sign* NDAA Martial Law

The scene with the TSA patting down the girl made me want to cry. I was thinking of my daughter and how I would feel. Unbelievable.

Originally posted by WiindWalker
This is it folks.... To all of those out there I love, I WILL protect you, I promise.

edit on 19-12-2011 by WiindWalker because: (no reason given)

We the people must stand up against this tyranny! If someone knocks on your door to take you and your family away, you fight them back with every ounce of strength you have!!

edit on 19-12-2011 by WiindWalker because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2011 by WiindWalker because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2011 by WiindWalker because: Havent got confirmation on actual signature, but it seems he is pushing for it

xa.yimg.com...

loveforlife.com.au...

Read the top link first God DAMNIT!! When will you people DO the research and understand the WORDS, TERMS OF ART, COLOR OF LAW......

Well did he sign it or not?

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


NO doubt of that. I am amazed at how many people gripe about how bad mainstream media is and I agree even but the fact that US citizens on this site seem to embrace a Foreign National Propaganda News Agency is beyond me.

They are now referred to as RT to deviate westerners from equating them as RUSSIA TODAY.

So of course they are covering it. They will cover and skew up anything they can to serve there purposes just like the rest of the MSM.

You Monomorium Minimums just keep beating that dead horse, huh?

If Ron Paul doesn't get elected I'm moving to Canada

reply to post by WiindWalker


Unfortunately this has already been debunked.
Here is the link

It's too late for voting Ron Paul in now. Not that he had a chance in hell anyways, with the media and our own government against him.

No, I'm afraid the only way to fix our problem of government gone bad is to make public a list of every congressperson who voted to pass this into law, and summarily remove them from power.

Someone recommended the guillotine earlier. A rope, ladder and large tree will suffice as well.

Our constitution is basically being nullified by a small group of men who sold out their country in order to maintain their position.

Fighting the incoming military occupation and police invasions is unnecessary. We need not harm our own people, who are under orders to detain us or lose their job. This can all end very quickly if we cut off the head of the beast.

Find our traitorous congresspeople. No more pleas for them to end this madness. They have failed in their duty to remain loyal to our country.

Who can bring us forth a list of every signature put forward that brought about this insanity?

We didn't ask for this revolution, it was brought to us.

It can be found under S 1867 or HR 1540.

Here's the updated tracking:
www.govtrack.us...

The house bill looks a bit different at first examination. I will need to look into it further.

reply to post by WiindWalker


When tested in court this would most certainly be found to be un-constitutional. Unless he gets re-elected and is able to pack the court.

reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss


Torches and pitchforks...

reply to post by daddio

Wow! That is all I can say Wow; the 1st link makes so much sense!

And as stated in the paper; It is not easy (to reclaim your state citizenship). Although I for one am going to start the process. The overlying issue is; do I have time to complete it before it is too late?

We shall see.......

Originally posted by Gwampo What site is saying TANKS are headed to the streets?

OOOHH Should be interesting. I happen to know for a fact that a tank weighs more than the legal limit allowed on the roads. I wonder if even one policeman, CHP, Trooper etc has the stones to pull over a tank and write out a citation.
They are hell on wheels against the unarmed with their tazers and pepper spray but when they have to 'man up' they will run for cover.

Let's see what they can write up.
Overweight,
No registration
No insurance
No turn signals
Etc Etc Etc
Not to mention a healthy dose of 'contempt of cop'

reply to post by DoubleDNH


Finally, someone come forward on it. The legislation is chaotic but forthright in regard to what the fear mongering is on about. Still fun reading all of the threads spinning the bad information though.

How long did you seriously think it would take before your government turned on you as well as on those of other coutries?

we live in interesting times, unfortunatley also dangeous times.

at least China has the balls to admit its policies and not pretend to its people they are free

It is interesting to note that the NDAA refers to those who assisted in perpetrating 9/11 as covered persons. Not sure if they booked any under that catgeory so far.

Wonder if they are going start arresting people in that category now that they have a legilsation that empowers them to do so.

Something tells me it is not going to be the instructors in the flight schools attended by the "hijackers" nor their Muslim friends.

HR 1540 has a section that explains intent and limitations, I have highlighted the concerning bits:

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.
Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

The use of "belligerents" denotes that this is a military document.
"An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."

The President, then, is bound by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541.
Public Law 107–40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible
for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that
the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force’’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
President.
Authorization for
Use of Military
Force.
50 USC 1541
note.
Sept. 18, 2001
[S.J. Res. 23]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:42 Oct 03, 2001 Jkt 089139 PO 00040 Frm 00001 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL040.107 APPS10 PsN: PUBL040
PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001 115 STAT. 225
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
Sept. 18, Presidential statement.
Æ
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.

Sooooo.the War Powers resolution is still a higher code for Executive behavior...
Let's see what that has to say:

War Powers Resolution
Title 50 of the United States Code
CHAPTER 15—NATIONAL SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER I—COORDINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
§ 1541. Purpose and policy
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or


!!!!!!!(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. !!!!!


Definitions relating to who can be considered a “national threat”

(5) The terms “national intelligence” and “intelligence related to national security” refer to all intelligence, regardless of the source from which derived and including information gathered within or outside the United States, that—
(A) pertains, as determined consistent with any guidance issued by the President, to more than one United States Government agency; and
(B) that involves—
(i) threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests;
(ii) the development, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction; or
(iii) any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security.


As I see it, The executive Branch is authorized to detain, until the deemed end of a conflict, enemy combatants and belligerents (by definition "civilians" that meet the Executives definition of "supporting terrorism or causing "damage" to property or people, which has just been defined further as "effecting the ability to go to work or make money") which power is given to the Executive Branch in times of War and NATIONAL EMERGENCIES to be reviewed within 90 days of enactment.

That's very, very broad and, yes, it does include indefinite (not defined) detention of belligerents (civilians) by the President... I'm not sure why so many folks are hung up on this one...fear maybe?

reply to post by kawika


It been declared Constitutional and has been a part of the War Powers Act of 1976. They are just defining the Homeland as a battlefield, ans cyberspace so that the power granted to the Executive Branch will be enactable against American civilians. The bill is awaiting Obama's signature. All he has to do after that is declare some kind of National emergency and begin picking up belligerents...technically anyone that makes economic demands on budgets by definition can be included, as "property" has been defined as economomic as well as physical and intellectual...

We live in some interesting and scary times.

I can barely keep up with all the bad # out there, anymore.