|
Post by Wes Gear on Dec 8, 2011 0:25:16 GMT 10
Obama Regime Declares a Global War on Freedom
|
|
|
Post by boxfree on Dec 8, 2011 9:22:57 GMT 10
Well.... the first chap has a very limited knowledge of US government and the Alex the fear monger Jones knows better but needs more revenue from ads on his site. The Administrative Branch does not write "Bills" the Legislative Branch which consists of the House and the Senate does. Now...Bills are not laws until they pass all three unless there are enough votes for a Presidential Veto Override. All that said Obama will either serve 1 more term or he will be out November 5, 2012.....Dictator? lol.... ;D OK. They are slaying people everywhere here and I have no one to shoot at with all my weapons they let me keep. The FEMA camps are filling up as we speak and they are replacing folks with androids so no one will notice......
This is complete bullshit.....Yeah, They want to be able to hunt down terrorist with out roadblocks and I take issue with the patriot act and the implications from it... but This crap that we are coming under Marshall Law and there are FEMA camps everywhere and Obama is a dictator is just CRAP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2011 10:27:25 GMT 10
Alex Jones said it so it must be real, I have never known him to make shit up, Charlie Sheen believes every word he says, so thats good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by boxfree on Dec 8, 2011 10:32:46 GMT 10
Alex Jones said it so it must be real, I have never known him to make shit up, Charlie Sheen believes every word he says, so thats good enough for me. ;D You a sheeple herder are ya? Hey now easy with that thar staff....
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Dec 8, 2011 19:52:47 GMT 10
This is complete bullshit..... Thanks Boxfree I was hoping it was bullshit and I knew you would tell me if it was. @ Darryl: I knew Charlie Sheen was a bit of a 911 truther but I didn't know he was a Alex Jones groupie.
|
|
|
Post by boxfree on Dec 8, 2011 21:44:09 GMT 10
This is complete bullshit..... Thanks Boxfree I was hoping it was bullshit and I knew you would tell me if it was. @ Darryl: I knew Charlie Sheen was a bit of a 911 truther but I didn't know he was a Alex Jones groupie. It's hard for me to understand why anyone who is serious about major issues uses this type of method to espouse their position. But I guess the lure of money is too great. Alex Jones could do some real good if he would get off this "scare the bejesus out of everyone" bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Dec 9, 2011 1:40:23 GMT 10
I steer clear of AJ Nothing personal,i just try to find my own way in life!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2011 8:15:26 GMT 10
Ok, AJ is a nut bag, but what gives fuel to all the conspiracy theories is stuff like this......
Basically, it gives the right to detain, indefinatly, without charge or trial, a US citizen "reasonably suspected" of being a terrorist or supporting a terrorist organisation.
DHS gives the reasons someone may be "reasonably suspested" of being a terrorist. It includes, "having guns, weather proofed ammunition" or "more than 7 days food supply in your home".
So why let terrorists destroy you freedom when the government is doing a great job on thier own.
|
|
|
Post by boxfree on Dec 10, 2011 9:24:38 GMT 10
You can't come out and call the guy defending your rights a dictator now can you.... It is disingenuous and a flat fucking lie.... It also helps to know what you're talking about...That gives fuel to the truth...
Obama Threatens Veto Of Defense Bill Over Military Custody For Terror Suspects Mandate President Barack Obama
SHARE RYAN J. REILLY NOVEMBER 17, 2011, 1:38 PM 2673 15 President Barack Obama is threatening to veto the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 over “unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial” restrictions imposed by Congress which would mandate certain terrorism suspects go into military custody.
“The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill,” the White House said in a statement. “In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s operations and detention practices.”
Specifically, the administration “strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects.”
The administration says that the “unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals.” The statement continues:
Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people. “Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto.,” the statement says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2011 11:40:40 GMT 10
Yeah but, what the White House didnt say was "we object to this because it completely violates the 4th amendment"
Hence more fuel to the conspiracy nuts.
|
|