US Senator Warns that the Federal Govt is About to Declare International Martial Law

Here is what the source for the video has to say for itself:

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by TheFreeThoughtProject.com and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.

thefreethoughtproject.com... [Emphasis mine --DJW001]

When is the subject of this post going to be changed to something accurate or is a MOD going to move it the HOAXLOL bin soon?

originally posted by: GD21D
A new AUMF is essentially being proposed to redefine the war strategy. From my understanding, taking things at face value, the main opposition to a newly drafted AUMF is an unclear war strategy by the Obama administration. I also recall issues from Republicans for duration and ground troop strength that had been proposed.

ISIS was not responsible for 9/11, nor was ISIS part of the goal of regime change that pushed us into Iraq in 2003. It is a different enemy with different capabilities and areas of operation than what the original AUMF was designed for.

Reading the tea leaves a bit further. We may be seeing the executive attempting to get outright authorization from the legislative branch for full contact operations inside of Syria if need be, which as of yet, has been a bit shaky. Remember the whole red line and 2013 chemical attack fiasco? This, at least to me, appears to be a continuation of that initiative. There are some people who are intent on removing Assad from power one way or another.

Quoted for truth. This is a succinct and realistic assessment of what this is all really about. The hand wringing and hyperbole surrounding this "international martial law" schtick is downright embarrassing. Unfortunately, it is what we have grown to expect from ATS.

a reply to: Boadicea
Good deal! It's important to know the full story.

a reply to: Phage

Yes! that IS the plan.

originally posted by: opethPA
When is the subject of this post going to be changed to something accurate or is a MOD going to move it the HOAXLOL bin soon?

Has it occurred to you that the thread title is an interpretation of the video? Opinions and interpretations aren't hoaxes, and as far as I can tell, thankfully, you're not a moderator.

Is this set up for the next president. Who will be either Hillary, The Whore of Babylon, or the Antichrist, Trump?

We indeed need to read the bill

Has it passed?

I'm calling bull# on this so-called "resolution". Nobody has the authority to declare "International Martial Law". Some dweeb is just trying to stir up #, is all.

a reply to: moonweed
The ideological foundation for this was laid down by Bush when he said 'Either you are with us, or you are with the tersts.'
Are you saying Mitch McConnell didn't introduce the resolution?
www.theatlantic.com...
www.msnbc.com...
www.lawfareblog.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.politico.com...

...use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations.

Seems pretty real to me.

a reply to: twitchy

The ideological foundation for this was laid down by Bush when he said 'Either you are with us, or you are with the tersts.'

The Emergency Powers Act goes back to LBJ; it expanded under Nixon and has been snowballing ever since.

Are you saying Mitch McConnell didn't introduce the resolution?

It is the characterization of the resolution as "international martial law" that is completely off base. It is merely a continuation of a trend that had gathered steam over half a century. Sooner or later our legislators are going to have to do their job and draft a proper constitutional amendment.

Obama is nothing more than a tyrant wanting to rule the whole planet, and some schmucks in DC think
they can give him the authority to do so....what a crock of #. I'm tired of reading about all this NWO crap.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: twitchy

It is the characterization of the resolution as "international martial law" that is completely off base

That 'characterization' is simply an opinion, one that I share, and frankly, it's not far from the truth considering our history of 'guilt by association' which almost invariably is based on 'flawed intelligence' or outright lies. We've funded, trained, and armed these people, and now we are using them as justification for military intervention wherever we like.
And if we're picking cherries, the Emergency War Powers Act has been around since 1917 until it was amended and kicked into high gear in 1933... LBJ was a teenager in 1917.

originally posted by: moonweed
Obama is nothing more than a tyrant wanting to rule the whole planet, and some schmucks in DC think
they can give him the authority to do so....what a crock of #. I'm tired of reading about all this NWO crap.

People said the same thing about Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Dubbya. This is not a new refrain, and one I am seriously wondering if anyone really knows what it means anymore.. no offense.

originally posted by: twitchy

originally posted by: opethPA
When is the subject of this post going to be changed to something accurate or is a MOD going to move it the HOAXLOL bin soon?

Has it occurred to you that the thread title is an interpretation of the video? Opinions and interpretations aren't hoaxes, and as far as I can tell, thankfully, you're not a moderator.

Where in the OP is the disclaimer that this was an opinion or interpretation.

The following is the subject of this thread ,"US Senator Warns that the Federal Govt is About to Declare International Martial Law" . That is written so it is a statement and since the statement isnt proven by any proof offered in the OP the thread title should be changed or it should be moved to one of their other two forums.

a reply to: opethPA

For crying out loud did you listen to the senator speak? At 53 seconds in the clip he says exactly that "it is essentially a declaration of international martial law". All hair splitting aside the message is clear. These new war powers are an over reach of the war powers clause in the constitution and set a dangerous precedent.

a reply to: opethPA

Thread Title: "US Senator Warns that the Federal Govt is About to Declare International Martial Law"

Direct Quote: "...it is essentially a declaration of international martial law." -Sen. Christopher Murphy

Willful Ignorance:

That is written so it is a statement and since the statement isnt proven by any proof offered in the OP...

Uninformed Opinion:

...the thread title should be changed or it should be moved to one of their other two forums.

Perhaps your post could also use a disclaimer, something like "I didn't actually watch the video I'm trying to debunk." or "I'm not a Moderator but..."

Hum international martial law? That's a new one.

a reply to: machineintelligence

I reckon a blizzard in a huge city like New York is a pretty big deal, but this obviously sounds like it is being used for something much bigger.

I was listening to the Dreamland radio show and their New Year special with Catherine Austin Fitts, who was a quite reputable economist. She started off by sharing a prayer and stating that's the only thing that might help for 2016. She is quite tough-skinned, but she made it very clear that it was going to be very rough.

So, I would assume the Martial Law may very well be for an economic collapse....

a reply to: PhageGood luck with russia and china. world war three anyone. No man/woman should ever have this much power, it will only lead to world destruction.

a reply to: corsair00

If an economic collapse is planned and there exists a deliberate conspiracy to cause such an event does this constitute a capitol crime do you think?