End Times and Current Events
October 22, 2017, 09:14:58 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Obama ushers in Police State with N.D.A.A.

Shoutbox
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
September 11, 2017, 03:40:40 am Christian40 says: those in america should better repent or things will only get worse
September 08, 2017, 08:03:04 pm Psalm 51:17 says: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wildfires-rage-west-amid-scorching-temperatures/story?id=49677869

Quote
There are currently 78 large wildfires burning in eight western states, including Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and California.

View Shout History
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama ushers in Police State with N.D.A.A.  (Read 3220 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: July 29, 2012, 11:56:27 am »

DHS gears up for civil unrest prior to presidential elections

The Department of Homeland Security has ordered masses of riot gear equipment to prepare for potential significant domestic riots at the Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.

The DHS submitted a rushed solicitation to the Federal Business Opportunities site on Wednesday, which is a portal for Federal government procurement requisitions over $25,000. The request gave the potential suppliers only one day to submit their proposals and a 15-day delivery requirement to Alexandria, Virginia.

As the brief explains, “the objective of this effort is to procure riot gear to prepare for the 2012 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the 2013 Presidential Inauguration and other future similar activities.”

The total amount ordered is about 150 sets of riot helmets, thigh and groin protectors, hard-shell shin guards and other riot gear.

Specifically, DHS is looking to obtain:

- “147 riot helmets” with “adjustable tactical face shield with liquid seal”

- “147 sets of upper body and shoulder protection”

- “152 sets of thigh and groin protection”

- “147 hard-shell shin guards” with “substantial protection from flying debris, non-ballistic weapons, and blows to the leg” and “optimized protective design for severe riot control or tactical situations.”

- “156 forearm protectors”

- “147 pairs of tactical gloves”

The riot gear will be worn by Federal Protective Service agents who are tasked with protecting property, grounds and buildings owned by the federal government.

The urgency of the order can be explained by the fact that there is a growing anticipation that many demonstrators will travel to the Republican National Convention (RNC), scheduled for August 27-30 in Tampa Bay, Florida, and Democratic National Convention (DNC), planned for September 3-6 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The RNC itself, for example, will have free speech zones, which will serve as containment quarters for the protesters by not allowing them to leave the designated areas and cause trouble.

Another recent DHS move to gear up was back in March of this year, when it gave the defense contractor ATK a deal to provide the DHS with 450 million .40 caliber hollow-point ammunition over a five year period.

On top of that, the DHS has recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings.

http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-unrest-gear-283/
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-prepares-for-civil-unrest-as-obama-poised-to-destroy-2nd-amendment/

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

ustice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. "Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: July 29, 2012, 01:41:42 pm »

So did "conservative" Scalia just admit he's more or less a GUN CONTROL advocate? Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #62 on: July 30, 2012, 02:03:54 am »

Quote
to prepare for potential significant domestic riots

Okay, so I know these law enforcement agencies practice, run drills, and get aready for "what if?", so that means they will make purchases such as this, but 150? For such large events? That seems small, paying no mind to all the equipment that has been previously purchased.

And just who will use that equiipment?

Quote
The riot gear will be worn by Federal Protective Service agents who are tasked with protecting property, grounds and buildings owned by the federal government.

No surprise there is an agency for such things!

Then there is this...

Quote
On top of that, the DHS has recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings.

Why do they feel the need for this now? Hundreds of new hires to protect federal buildings?

That to me is "hunkering down", which means they are preparing for what that equipment is used for.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: July 30, 2012, 05:49:27 am »

Does Barack Obama Expect The Upcoming Election To Spark Rampant Civil Unrest?

What is Barack Obama preparing for?  What does Barack Obama actually expect to happen in November?  Does he believe that the upcoming election could actually spark rampant civil unrest inside the United States?  The conditions are certainly ripe for civil unrest in this country.  A multitude of recent polls and surveys have shown that Americans are angrier and more frustrated than ever.  Sadly, we are taking a lot of that anger and frustration out on each other.  America is more divided today than at any other time since the Civil War era.  The left absolutely hates Mitt Romney the Republicans, and the right absolutely hates Barack Obama and the Democrats.  If you doubt this, just surf political blogs for a few hours and read the comments that people leave.  This country is a boiling cauldron of hatred and anger and all it is going to take is just the right "spark" to cause all of this hatred and anger to absolutely explode.  This upcoming election season is likely to be one of the most heated and divisive election seasons in U.S. history, and if there is not a clear winner on election night there is the potential that chaos could be unleashed that would be far, far worse than anything we saw during the Bush/Gore debacle of 2000.

Right now, the polls tell us that this is likely to be a very, very tight election.  If you doubt this, just check out the daily Gallup tracking poll.

As I write this, Obama and Romney are tied at 46 percent.

In 2008, a wave of positive emotion helped Obama secure a solid victory on election night where there was no doubt about the outcome.

But this time there is not going to be the same wave of positive emotion behind Obama, and that means that the election is likely to be much, much closer.

One thing that set off alarm bells for me is when various news stories starting discussing the "legion of lawyers" that Barack Obama was recruiting for this election.  The following is from a recent article in the Huffington Post....

President Barack Obama's campaign has recruited a legion of lawyers to be on standby for this year's election as legal disputes surrounding the voting process escalate. Thousands of attorneys and support staffers have agreed to aid in the effort, providing a mass of legal support that appears to be unrivaled by Republicans or precedent.

Did you catch that?

Obama's "unprecedented" legion of lawyers is definitely getting prepared for something.

In a tightly contested race, would Obama use every legal angle that he possibly could to take the election away from Mitt Romney?

Would Mitt Romney potentially do the same to Obama?

How would the rest of America respond to another huge legal struggle over the presidency?

Let us hope that we never find out the answers to any of those questions.

But fighting in court is not the only avenue that Barack Obama could potentially use to keep his spot in the White House.

There is also the possibility that Barack Obama could use his executive powers to influence the outcome of the election.

This year, Obama has issued a whole series of very strange executive orders.

Many have been wondering what the true purpose of these executive orders really is.

For example, EO 13603 enables Barack Obama to take total control over all food, all energy, all health resources and all transportation resources with the stroke of a pen.

The following is from an article about this executive order by Jim Garrison in the Huffington Post....

President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen.

Later in that same article, he detailed some of the extraordinary powers that the executive branch would be given if Barack Obama decided that "national security" required it....

• The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
• The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
• The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
• The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
• The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.

According to this executive order, a "national emergency" is not even required to activate these powers.  If Barack Obama decides that there is a threat to "national security" (or to his job security) he could activate these powers at any time.

Another executive order, EO 13618, would potentially give Obama power over all communication resources in the United States.

So does that mean that Obama could potentially pull the plug on the Internet during a crisis?

That is a very good question.

Overall, Obama has issued more than 900 executive orders during his time as president.  The amount of power that he now claims to possess is absolutely mind blowing.

So will he ever actually attempt to use the powers that he has granted himself under these executive orders?

Let's hope not.

In addition, it appears that the Department of Homeland Security is gearing up for something.

An article posted on RT the other day entitled "DHS gears up for civil unrest prior to presidential elections" detailed some of the purchases that the Department of Homeland Security is looking to make....

The DHS submitted a rushed solicitation to the Federal Business Opportunities site on Wednesday, which is a portal for Federal government procurement requisitions over $25,000. The request gave the potential suppliers only one day to submit their proposals and a 15-day delivery requirement to Alexandria, Virginia.

As the brief explains, “the objective of this effort is to procure riot gear to prepare for the 2012 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the 2013 Presidential Inauguration and other future similar activities.”

The total amount ordered is about 150 sets of riot helmets, thigh and groin protectors, hard-shell shin guards and other riot gear.

Specifically, DHS is looking to obtain:

- “147 riot helmets” with “adjustable tactical face shield with liquid seal”

- “147 sets of upper body and shoulder protection”

- “152 sets of thigh and groin protection”

- “147 hard-shell shin guards” with “substantial protection from flying debris, non-ballistic weapons, and blows to the leg” and “optimized protective design for severe riot control or tactical situations.”

- “156 forearm protectors”

- “147 pairs of tactical gloves”

The riot gear will be worn by Federal Protective Service agents who are tasked with protecting property, grounds and buildings owned by the federal government.

You can find the DHS solicitation right here.

Also, as I have written about previously, earlier this month FEMA posted a solicitation for a large number of pre-packaged meals.  According to the solicitation, the maximum number of meals that would be provided to FEMA under the contract would be 17.5 million meals.  The following is from the FEMA solicitation document....

As referred to in paragraph (b) of FAR Clause 52.216-22, “Indefinite Quantity” of this contract, the guaranteed contract minimum is 21,000 packaged meals to include the base and option periods.  The contract ceiling amount shall not exceed 17,500,000 packaged meals.

So do those solicitations mean anything special or are they just part of normal government operations?

That is a good question.

But what we do know is that U.S. military personnel are going to be deployed at the Democratic and Republican national conventions in support of U.S. Secret Service personnel.  The following is from a recent Stars and Stripes article....

"During the Democratic/Republican National Conventions, Department of Defense personnel will support the U.S. Secret Service," a Northern Command spokesman said in an email.

"For operational security reasons we do not discuss the numbers of military personnel and resources that are involved," U.S. Navy Lt. Cdr. William G. Lewis said. "Additionally, we do not share our operational plans."

Could the same forces be deployed to quell civil unrest sparked by a controversial election result in November?

Let us hope that this upcoming election season is not as bitter and divisive as many are projecting and let us hope that there is a clear winner in November.

The conditions are definitely right for America to be absolutely torn apart if the "perfect controversy" comes rolling along.

At this moment, Americans are incredibly frustrated.  Our economy has been in the dumps for quite a few years, and now it look like another recession is starting.  The patience of the American people is running out.

Over much of the western United States things are so hot and dry right now that just a single spark is often enough to set off a forest fire that can burn for weeks.  Well, the same thing can be said for the political climate in the United States right now.

The American people are so hot and so angry that it would not take much to set off a raging political fire.

Let us hope that cooler heads prevail, because a single spark could set this country ablaze.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/does-barack-obama-expect-the-upcoming-election-to-spark-rampant-civil-unrest
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: July 30, 2012, 09:18:24 am »

Upcoming election to spark civil unrest? Nah...both Obama and Romney are one and the same - both serve pagan religions, both have liberal views all around(and both have their own fascist health care systems to boot)...can't be, right?
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #65 on: July 30, 2012, 03:23:38 pm »

Okay, God knows what will be, however bieng wise as serpents we can get an idea how they operate. Theories abound, but one particular I think has merit; Romney pushing for Obama being brought up on charges for fraud over his birth place, and the fraud is federal charges on submitting false documents to the government like his birth certificate and social security numbers attached to him, making him ineligible for election and subject to criminal charges. They might even toss out there some college days stuff like his Occidental College days oversees.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: September 18, 2012, 09:50:29 pm »

Just over a week ago, we wrote of the challenge to Obama's NDAA totalitarian bill. Hope remained that Chris Hedges' view of the indefinite detention as "unforgivable, unconstitutional, and exceedingly dangerous" would bolster judgment. However, as Russia Today reports, a lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House's ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Read More...
http://www.infosalvo.com/us-news/obama-reinstates-ndaa-military-detention-provision/
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 09:52:36 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Boldhunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 346


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2012, 10:08:45 pm »

Wow! One more car on a CA highway should be a good thing right? EVEN an un-manned one...

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-self-driving-car-law-20120925,0,4332330.story
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #68 on: October 03, 2012, 11:30:49 am »

Why You Should Be Outraged About The Ruling To Keep The NDAA Indefinite Detention Clause In Effect

On Tuesday a federal appeals court ruled the government can indefinitely detain anyone, at least until the courts decide whether to permanently block or confirm the indefinite detention clause (i.e. §1021) of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. 

That the NDAA is fully enforceable right now is scary enough, but the details of the ruling are truly bothersome to those that have been following the rulings in the case.

First, a recap why §1021 was ruled unconstitutional and how the government reacted.

Journalists and activists sued to stop the provisions, which allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone who provides "substantial support" to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or "associated forces," including "any person who has committed a belligerent act" in the aid of such enemy forces.

In May District Judge Katherine Forrest sided with the plaintiffs and ordered a temporary block on the grounds that the provisions are so vague they are unconstitutional under the First (i.e. free speech/press) and Fifth (i.e. due process) Amendments.

The government then argued that it "construes the reach of the injunction to apply only to the plaintiffs before the Court." So Forrest clarified her decision in June to "leave no doubt" that U.S. citizens can't be indefinitely detained without due process.


Last month Forrest ordered a permanent injunction on the clause, the government appealed, and Appeals Court Judge Raymond Lohier reinstated the indefinite detention provisions pending a decision by today's panel.

On Tuesday Judges Lohier, Denny Chin and Christopher Droney agreed with a government motion of appeal that the plaintiffs "are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military," then cited the text of the NDAA to rule that "the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States."

So, according to the government's new argument, they would never indefinitely detain the plaintiffs or any U.S. citizen in the first place. And the judges took them at their word.

Furthermore, the appeals court judges ruled that Forrest's injunction went beyond the NDAA and limited "the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF).

But Judge Forrest was careful to protect the AUMF.

Previously the government argued that the NDAA adds nothing new to the AUMF, which was a resolution passed a week after 9/11 that gives the president authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons."

The NDAA actually does add language to the AUMF, stating that "The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces."

What Judge Forrest did was rule the extra part unconstitutionally vague while allowing the section of the NDAA that authorizes the government to indefinitely detain “those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the actual 9/11 attacks.”

In short, on Tuesday the appeals court judges took the government at its word while ignoring the fact that the NDAA's vague language creates detainment powers that are nearly boundless.

The appeals court essentially ignored both the entire argument of the plaintiffs and Forrest's subsequent ruling that the fears §1021 could impact First Amendment rights are "chilling," "reasonable" and "real."

Forrest provided the government the opportunity to define which actions and associations would lead to indefinite detention—thereby limiting the scope of indefinite detention powers—but the government chose not to do so.

Forrest noted that there is a "strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention," and right now we have no clue what we could be locked up for.

As a kicker, the three-judge panel said Forrest restricted the AUMF when she made sure not to.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-should-be-outraged-about-the-ruling-to-keep-the-national-defense-authorization-in-effect-2012-10#ixzz28Fpe06LI
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: October 09, 2012, 11:27:54 am »

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-security-preparing-for-massive-civil-war/

10/6/12

Homeland Security: Preparing for Massive Civil War

Saturday, October 6th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Fetzer

Homeland Security: Preparing for Massive Civil War
by Paul Joseph Watson and Alexander Higgins (with Jim Fetzer)
 
The discovery by the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (3 October 2012) that, “Despite reviewing 13 months’ worth of reporting originating from fusion centers from April 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, the Subcommittee investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot” means that there is no evidence of the existence of any domestic terrorist threat.  On that basis, it is rational to infer (with high probability) that there is no domestic terrorist threat.
 
We also know that there are 300 or more FEMA camps distributed around the country. We know that Congress has authorized 30,000 drones to conduct surveillance on the American people. We know that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had requisitioned 1.5 billion rounds of .40 calibre hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible for use in warfare under the Geneva Conventions. Since DHS does not conduct operations abroad, it is rational to infer (with virtual certainty) that DHS must be acquiring that massive stock of ammo for use in the United States.
 
And we now learn that Congress is in the process of passing H.R. 6566, “The Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act”, which was posted on the govtrack.us website FEMA To Mobilize For “Mass Fatality Planning” (5 October 2012), mandating federal agency to respond to “funeral homes, cemeteries, and mortuaries” being “overwhelmed” in the aftermath of a mass terror attack, natural disaster or other crisis. It was posted this after having been approved by the House on 28 September 2012.  Not to make an obvious point, but there is no domestic terrorist threat and no conceiveable natural disaster could possibly justify this dramatic authorization for coping with staggering numbers of bodies.

more
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: October 09, 2012, 11:30:49 am »

http://www.infowars.com/new-congressional-amendment-prepares-for-mass-casualties-in-america

10/8/12

New Congressional Amendment Prepares For Mass Casualties in America

Last month, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6566 which is an amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that imbues the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.”
 
In the anticipated event of a “mass fatality”, coordination and planning must be forefront of FEMA with the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as referred by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (CTI). In the event that the Executive Branch or Congress declares a mass disaster caused by nature, a domestic terrorist attack, or any other man-made catastrophe, there must be a national plan to prepare for and respond to the incident.
 
Elected officials assume that in such an event, funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries would be overwhelmed should millions of Americans suddenly die in a tragic event. There must also be allowances for survivors of such an event.
 
Representatives from local and state governments must coordinate with federal agencies, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations and appropriate individuals to prepare and respond to an incident wherein mass casualties occur.

Recently, FEMA graduated their inaugural class of 231 FEMA Corps members trained in future disaster preparedness whether state-sponsored or natural. These intiates will be the leaders of the FEMA Center for Domestic Preparedness will be assigned specific roles across the nation from community relations to Disaster Recovery Center support.
 
The DHS and Simon Properties have collaborated on the See Something, Say Something campaign, but also may have a sinister agenda. DHS has created relationships with representatives with Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Football League
.

more
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2012, 06:27:00 pm »

Senate limits detention of U.S. citizens

Senators who have battled for more than a year over military detention of U.S. citizens nearly all supported an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Thursday, but the two sides had very different interpretations of what the provision accomplished.

Feinstein’s amendment, which states that U.S. citizens or permanent residents shall not be detained without charge or trial, passed the Senate 67-29, with 19 Republicans joining with most Democrats to pass the bill.

Feinstein said her amendment with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) would prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents captured on U.S. soil.

Read the full story › http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/270241-senate-passes-amendment-to-curb-military-detention-of-us-citizens
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: November 30, 2012, 09:46:10 pm »

Senate limits detention of U.S. citizens

Senators who have battled for more than a year over military detention of U.S. citizens nearly all supported an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Thursday, but the two sides had very different interpretations of what the provision accomplished.

Feinstein’s amendment, which states that U.S. citizens or permanent residents shall not be detained without charge or trial, passed the Senate 67-29, with 19 Republicans joining with most Democrats to pass the bill.

Feinstein said her amendment with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) would prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents captured on U.S. soil.

Read the full story › http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/270241-senate-passes-amendment-to-curb-military-detention-of-us-citizens


Yes, 1) Feinstein can NOT be trusted, period(not that anyone else on Capitol Hill can be trusted either, but just saying), and 2) This itself speaks volumes b/c they seem to be vague and somewhat secretively over the real meaning of this language.

Let no man deceive you...
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #73 on: December 01, 2012, 04:56:08 am »

Our representatives need to remember that the law could involve them too! They could be the ones held indefinately for crimes against the US. Just sayin'!
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2012, 07:08:12 am »

Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens without Trial is Treason

Infowars.com
Dec 12, 2012


That means this could quite possibly be nothing but shock jock rhetoric

By now anyone who pays attention to politics knows that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 contained a provision that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

video: http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-of-u-s-citizens-without-trial-is-treason/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2012, 11:37:48 am »

From what I understand of the definition of treason, no it is not treason at all, just a violation of a person's constitutional rights to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers.

If a politician acts believing that what they are doing is constitutional, then it isn't treason. Basically, the person must show action and intent to act against the US as an enemy of the state.

Now if it can be proven that these politicians are acting with the intent to overthrow the US, to somehow undermine the US in some way, yeah it's treason.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2012, 11:44:04 am »

From what I understand of the definition of treason, no it is not treason at all, just a violation of a person's constitutional rights to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers.

If a politician acts believing that what they are doing is constitutional, then it isn't treason. Basically, the person must show action and intent to act against the US as an enemy of the state.

Now if it can be proven that these politicians are acting with the intent to overthrow the US, to somehow undermine the US in some way, yeah it's treason.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Very interesting...seems like I learn more and more every single day, and still have a long ways to go!

Yeah, we also have to be discerning with some of these fearmongering organizations et al like Infowars/Prison Planet.

And no, I don't endorse this NDAA bill whatsoever, FWIW.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: December 15, 2012, 03:05:14 pm »

Attorney General Secretly Granted Gov. Ability to Develop and Store Dossiers on Innocent Americans

In a secret government agreement granted without approval or debate from lawmakers, the U.S. attorney general recently gave the National Counterterrorism Center sweeping new powers to store dossiers on U.S. citizens, even if they are not suspected of a crime, according to a news report.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder granted the center the ability to copy entire government databases holding information on flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and other data, and to store it for up to five years, even without suspicion that someone in the database has committed a crime, according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story.

Whereas previously the law prohibited the center from storing data compilations on U.S. citizens unless they were suspected of terrorist activity or were relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation, the new powers give the center the ability to not only collect and store vast databases of information but also to trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation.

The changes granted by Holder would also allow databases containing information about U.S. citizens to be shared with foreign governments for their own analysis.

A former senior White House official told the Journal that the new changes were “breathtaking in scope.”

But counterterrorism officials tried to downplay the move by telling the Journal that the changes come with strict guidelines about how the data can be used.

“The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes,” Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told the paper.

The NCTC currently maintains the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, or TIDE, which holds data on more than 500,000 identities suspected of terror activity or terrorism links, including friends and families of suspects, and is the basis for the FBI’s terrorist watchlist.

Under the new rules issued in March, the NCTC can now obtain almost any other government database that it claims is “reasonably believed” to contain “terrorism information.” This could conceivably include collections of financial forms submitted by people seeking federally backed mortgages or even the health records of anyone who sought mental or physical treatment at government-run hospitals, such as Veterans Administration facilities, the paper notes.

The Obama administration’s new rules come after previous surveillance proposals were struck down during the Bush administration, following widespread condemnation.

In 2002, the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness program proposed to scrutinize both government and private databases, but public outrage killed the program in essence, though not in spirit. Although Congress de-funded the program in 2003, the NSA continued to collect and sift through immense amounts of data about who Americans spoke with, where they traveled and how they spent their money.

The Federal Privacy Act prohibits government agencies from sharing data for any purpose other than the reason for which the data was initially collected, in order to prevent the creation of dossiers, but agencies can do an end-run around this restriction by posting a notice in the Federal Register, providing justification for the data request. Such notices are rarely seen or contested, however.

The changes to the rules for the NCTC were sought in large part after authorities failed to catch Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before he boarded a plane on Christmas Day in 2009 with explosives sewn into his underwear. Abdulmutallab wasn’t on the FBI watchlist, but the NCTC had received tips about him, and yet failed to search other government databases to connect dots that might have helped prevent him from boarding the plane.

As the NCTC tried to remedy that situation for later suspects, legal obstacles emerged, the Journal reports, since the center was only allowed to query federal databases for a specific name or a specific passenger list. “They couldn’t look through the databases trolling for general ‘patterns,’” the paper notes.

But the request to expand the center’s powers led to a heated debate at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, with Mary Ellen Callahan, then-chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, leading the charge to defend civil liberties. Callahan argued that the new rules represented a “sea change” and that every interaction a citizen would have with the government in the future would be ruled by the underlying question, is that person a terrorist?

Callahan lost her battle, however, and subsequently left her job, though it’s not known if her struggle over the NCTC debate played a role in her decision to leave.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/gov-dossiers-on-us-citizens/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: December 17, 2012, 07:37:48 pm »

Tweeters 'could be military targets:Social media users who use tweets and online posts to comment on a military operation could be regarded as legitimate military targets

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/tweeters-could-be-military-targets-20121213-2bcjq.html#ixzz2F9jZl3CW
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20936



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: December 20, 2012, 07:14:26 am »

NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Mysteriously Stripped From Bill

Quote
Congress Uses School Massacre Hysteria as Distraction to Restore Indefinite Detention for Americans

Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both chambers worked out a unified measure.

It declared that "An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."

The provision sparked a heated debate in the Senate, but ultimately passed by a wide majority with both supporters and opponents of U.S. terrorist detention practices voting for it, citing differing interpretations. Feinstein offered the amendment to clarify a part of the 2012 NDAA that for the first time codified the ability of the military and White House to detain terrorism suspects.

Spokespeople for Senate committee leaders did not immediately answer why the amendment was stripped, but pointed to the language that replaced it:

    Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.

The new provision appears to do little, because the Supreme Court has already declared that the writ of habeas corpus -- requiring that someone be presented to a judge -- applies to all people. The more difficult part of whether people deserve a trial remains unsettled, and the new provision does not appear to resolve it.

"This language doesn't do anything of substance," said Raha Wala, a lawyer in the law and national security program of Human Rights First. "It doesn't ban indefinite detention within the United States or change anything about existing law."

Feinstein said she was not pleased that her attempt to at least shield citizens and legal residents was stripped.

“I was saddened and disappointed that we could not take a step forward to ensure at the very least American citizens and legal residents could not be held in detention without charge or trial," Feinstein said. "To me that was a no-brainer.”

Nevertheless, many activists who oppose indefinite detention were not all that enamored with her amendment because some felt it asserted that Congress had the right to make laws requiring detention of citizens. Others believed it failed the test of constitutionality because the Constitution specifies its protections extend to all people, not just citizens. It also did not address terror suspects captured overseas.

The White House had threatened to veto both the House and Senate versions over numerous other provisions included in the legislation. Among them were restrictions on the executive's ability to transfer prisoners from the prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The White House did not immediately answer questions about whether the threats stood.

UPDATE: 5:25 p.m. -- Conservative Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R), slammed the change, singling out Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the process.

    “The decision by the NDAA conference committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the entire NDAA unconstitutional,” Sen. Paul said.

    “I voted against NDAA in 2011 because it did not contain the proper constitutional protections. When my Senate colleagues voted to include those protections in the 2012 NDAA through the Feinstein-Lee Amendment last month, I supported this act,” Sen. Paul continued. “But removing those protections now takes us back to square one and does as much violence to the Constitution as last year’s NDAA. When the government can arrest suspects without a warrant, hold them without trial, deny them access to counsel or admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity.

    “Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole.

    “Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: December 29, 2012, 10:18:11 am »

Report Spam   Logged
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3834


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2013, 10:22:24 pm »



a picture that says a thousand words
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2013, 02:07:39 pm »

Pg 326 "Dissemination Abroad of Information about the United States" of the NDAA bill Hr 4310: (A little window in how propaganda is used by the government?)
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=9886&st=25#entry22009862

The Bill:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf


Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: April 13, 2013, 03:23:27 pm »

Governor Hickenlooper About To Give Secret Service Power To Arrest Colorado Sheriffs
4/1/13
http://k99.com/governor-hickenlooper-about-to-give-secret-service-power-to-arrest-colorado-sheriffs/

There is a term for what is being talked about yet I can’t think of it.  Rumor has it though that the Federal government is laying the groundwork to let the Secret Service start arresting Sheriffs for not enforcing new gun control laws, starting with Colorado.

By the sounds of it, Colorado is being targeted with an attempt to set up loopholes that will allow the U.S. Secret Service to arrest and remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law, or anyone breaking the law. This means ALL Secret Service including uniformed division officers, physical security technicians, specialists, and other ‘special officers’.

In short they want to,

“…establish federal authority police powers in a State, enabling an enforcement arm reporting directly to the president (Secret Service). It would enable the president / executive branch to theoretically override the actions and preventative measures that are now being taken by many States throughout the country who are trying to preserve 2nd Amendment gun rights and who are prohibiting the enforcement of unconstitutional law passed by Congress or pushed by executive order.

Most of us are well aware that just about every Sheriff across the country, including our own Weld and Larimer Sheriffs, (about 350 in all) have all said they will not enforce any mandate from Washington if it violates the Second Amendment, which these future mandates do.

Many states are trying to pass gun control bills, but politicians in Colorado have all but passed Senate Bill SB-13-013 which will give “police powers” and “arrest authority” to the federal/executive branch of government (Secret Service) within the State.

Sound fun?  Don’t worry Texas, it sounds like y’all are up next!  (Read full story here.)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #84 on: April 14, 2013, 04:17:12 am »

That's a bunch of bull. Think about it. The Secret Service are a federal agency. Since when does a state governor have ANY authority over a federal agency? Never. It's not a governor's, or any other state official's, call. Besides, if a sheriff isn't enforcing the laws, that's a state issue with the governor, the state attorney general, and the sheriff. Now if the sheriff is elected? Whole 'nother ballgame. If any agency, I'd say it's the FBI that would handle such a federal gripe with a sheriff. Even then, it's a sticky situation as to who has say when a sheriff isn't enforcing state law versus federal law. Consider how the federal government is at odds with Sheriff Arpio in Arizona over immigration. He's still in office.

This almost reads like a an Onion story.

Then I read this...(as I expected!)

Quote
In the last decade, CO started to grant limited authority to certain federal law enforcement agencies. The purpose is so that if they witness a citizen being victimized, they can act and turn the case over to a local police officer (because most crimes against our citizens are not federal crimes and they have no other jurisdiction to intervene as federal officers. The law also allows them, in cases where they are investigating a crime that is against both state and federal law, to file the case with our local DA in situations where the damage amount doesn’t meet a threshold where the federal prosecutors will file it in federal court. If you read the bill, you will see the limitations clearly in it. As Sheriffs, we are the beacon against over reach by federal authorities, but in this situation, it is not the case - Sheriff Justin Smith

The thing is that federal agencies have little to no law enforcement authority in a state. They only have jurisdiction on federal issues, and even then they usually have to work with state officials.

The author of this story needs education, and to be told to quit sensationalizing stories.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: May 03, 2013, 09:08:57 pm »

"The number of names on a highly classified U.S. central database used to track suspected terrorists has jumped to 875,000 from 540,000 only five years ago, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/05/03/number-of-names-on-terrorism-suspect-database-jumps-to-875000/
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28356


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: June 27, 2013, 06:46:53 pm »

House Passes 2014 NDAA; NSA Surveillance Will Lead to Indefinite Detention
6/27/13
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/15829-house-passes-14-ndaa-nsa-surveillance-will-lead-to-indefinite-detention

The annual renewal of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is underway on Capitol Hill.

On June 14, by a vote of 315-108, the House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2014 version of the NDAA (HR 1960). Several amendments to the defense spending legislation were proposed, many of which were approved either by voice vote or en bloc. The first method of voting requires no report on how individual members voted, while the second method aggregates amendments, allowing them to be voted on in groups.

A few of the amendments represent significant improvements to the NDAA of 2012 and 2013. The acts passed for those years infamously permitted the president to deploy U.S. military troops to apprehend and indefinitely detain any American he alone believed to be aiding enemies of the state.

While the 2014 iteration doesn’t go far enough in pushing the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage, there are at least a few congressmen willing to try to crack the whip and restore constitutional separation of powers and shore up a few of the fundamental liberties suspended by the NDAA of the past two years.

First, there is the amendment offered by Representative Trey Radel (R-Fla.). Radel’s amendment requires the Department of Defense to submit to the Congress a report every year containing: (1) the names of any U.S. citizens subject to military detention, (2) the legal justification for their continued detention, and (3) the steps the Executive Branch is taking to either provide them some judicial process, or release them. Requires that an unclassified version of the report be made available, and in addition, that the report must be made available to all members of Congress.

Radel’s amendment was passed by voice vote.

Next, an amendment offered by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) would require the federal government, in habeas proceedings for U.S. citizens apprehended in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the citizen is an unprivileged enemy combatant and there is not presumption that the government's evidence is accurate and authentic.

The House approved the Goodlatte amendment by a vote of 214-211.

Finally, an amendment by Representative Paul Broun (R-Ga.) forbids the Department of Defense from killing a citizen of the United States by a drone attack unless that person is actively engaged in combat against the United States.

This trio of amendments represents a laudable attempt to restrain the power of the executive. As constitutionalists and civil libertarians are aware, recent occupants of the Oval Office have usurped sweeping unconstitutional powers, including the authority to target Americans for indefinite detention, to withhold from them rights that have been recognized as unalienable since before the Magna Carta, and to kill American citizens who have been charged with no crime and been given no opportunity to defend themselves from the accusations that qualified them for summary assassination.

Despite these small victories in the battle to restore constitutionally protected liberty, the debate on the 2014 NDAA provided several examples of Congress violating their oaths of office by shrinking the scope of basic rights and expanding the power of the president to act as de facto (and now, de jure) judge, jury, and executioner.

For example, two amendments offered by Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) were rejected by his colleagues, to their dishonor.

Smith’s first proposed amendment would have prohibited indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in the United States, territories, or possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution or by an appropriate state court.

Not surprisingly, Smith’s amendment failed to garner approval, being voted down by a vote of 200-226 (213 Republicans voted against Smith’s amendment).

This was not the first time the “conservatives” in Congress rejected a proposal by Representative Smith that would have protected due process and disgorged the president of powers to which he is not entitled. During last year’s deliberations on the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, the House of Representatives voted to perpetuate the president’s power to indefinitely detain American citizens.

By a vote of 238-182, members of Congress rejected the amendment offered by Smith and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision passed overwhelmingly in 2011 as part of the 2012 NDAA.

The Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA retained the indefinite detention provisions, as well as the section permitting prisoners to be transferred from civilian jurisdiction to the custody of the military.

"The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial," Representative Amash said during House debate last year.

In his impassioned speech supporting the amendment he proposed last year, Representative Smith reminded his colleagues that the NDAA granted to the president “extraordinary” powers and divested the American people of key civil liberties, as well as divesting civilian courts of their constitutional jurisdiction.

Smith pointed out that there was no need to transfer suspects into military custody as “hundreds” of terrorists have been tried in federal courts since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Members of Congress — mostly Republican members — have united in firm defense of the president’s unconstitutional power to apprehend and indefinitely detain Americans
.

There are very few more powerful reminders that there is no party in Washington, D.C., that is committed to faithfully adhering to the oath of office or to the upholding of the manifold God-given rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Finally, there is in the NDAA for 2014, a frightening fusion of the federal government’s constant surveillance of innocent Americans and the assistance it will give to justifying the indefinite detention of anyone labeled an enemy of the regime.

Section 1061 of the 2014 NDAA approved by the House expands on the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the AUMF. Sec. 1061(a) authorizes the secretary of efense to "establish a center to be known as the 'Conflict Records Research Center.’” According to the current text of the NDAA, the center would be tasked with compiling a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

In order to accomplish the center’s purpose, the secretary of defense will create an information exchange in cooperation with the director of national intelligence.

Key to the functioning of this information exchange will be the collection of “captured records.” Section 1061(g)(1), defines a captured record as "a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States."

When read in conjunction with the provision of the AUMF that left the War on Terror open-ended and previous NDAAs’ classification of the United States as a battleground in that unconstitutional war, and you’ve got a powerful combination that can knock out the entire Bill of Rights.

Finally, when all the foregoing is couched within the context of the revelations regarding the dragnet surveillance programs of the NSA, it becomes evident that anyone’s phone records, e-mail messages, browsing history, text messages, and social media posts could qualify as a “captured record.”

After being seized by the NSA (or some other federal surveillance apparatus), the seized materials would be processed by the Conflict Records Research Center created by this bill. This center's massive database of electronic information and its collaboration with the NSA converts the United States into a constantly monitored holding cell and all its citizens and residents into suspects. All, of course, in the name of security.

To wit, Americans zealous about retaining their rights and resisting the constant repeal of them by the federal government would be wise to remember the words James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1798: “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #87 on: June 28, 2013, 03:34:40 am »

Quote
Several amendments to the defense spending legislation were proposed, many of which were approved either by voice vote or en bloc. The first method of voting requires no report on how individual members voted, while the second method aggregates amendments, allowing them to be voted on in groups.

That right there is one of the most problematic issues with legislation. They keep "bill stuffing" with unrelated amendments. And here we see they use the cowards' "voice vote" yet again to hide who voted for what.

And a new one on me is this "en bloc", aggregating several amendments together and voting on them in a group. If they have THAT much legislation to vote on, they need to back off all those bills they keep writing.

People are told all the time to watch out for the fine print, to read what your signing and make sure you understand what it is that your signing. These politicians aren't reading what they vote on, no way.

About the most underhanded thing in Washington.
Report Spam   Logged
Boldhunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 346


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: July 16, 2013, 01:21:13 pm »

FEMA PSAPSA, SAGPosted: 7/11/2013Union Status SAGConflicts NoneRun(Usage) 1 Year from Session DateRate DOUBLE SCALE SAG SESSION FEE for 8 hr. shoot and usage Submissions Due By 7/15/2013Callback Dates 7/26/2013Audition Dates 7/16/2013, 7/17/2013, 7/18/2013, 7/19/2013 Audition Location Francene Selkirk Casting11317 Ventura Blvd.Studio City CA 91604 Shoot/Performance Dates 7/31/2013Call Back Location Francene Selkirk Casting11317 Ventura Blvd.Studio City CA   Shoot/Performance Dates NoteLos Angeles, CA Submission Due By Note ASAP.!!!! Project Notes Double scale shoot dateNO RESIDUALS RolesubmitshareCAUC.MOM,38-46 / SAG / "plan by the seat of your pants" / Principal / Female / Caucasian / 38-46Caucasian mom, 38-46, real with character to very character. Great with dialogue..There's lots of dialogue..Great comedic timing.Wardrobe: CASUAL MOM GET SCRIPT "PLAN BY THE THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS"Rate: Double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 12:48 PM Other Current RolessubmitshareAF. AMER. SON 10-11 / SAG / "not Sharing" / Principal / Male / African American / 10-11African American girl 10-11 years old, real with character to very character, Great actor..Great with dialogue..Wardrobe: KID CASUAL GET SCRIPT "NOT SHARING"Rate: double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 2:48 PM submitshareAF. AMER DAUGHTER-10-11 / SAG / "Not Sharing" / Principal / Female / African American / 10-11African American girl 10-11 years old, real with character to very character, Great actor..Great with dialogue.. DO NOT DOUBLE SUBMIT !!!!Wardrobe: KID CASUAL GET SCRIPT "NOT SHARING"Rate: Double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 2:46 PM submitshareAF. AMER. DAUGHTER-12-14 / SAG / "not Sharing" / Principal / Female / African American / 12-14African American girl 12-14 years old, real with character to very character, Great actor..Great with dialogue..DO NOT DOUBLE SUBMITWardrobe: KID CASUAL GET SCRIPT "NOT SHARING"Rate: double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 2:38 PM submitshareAF. AMER DAD-38-46 / SAG / "not Sharing" / Principal / Male / African American / 38-46African American Male, 38-46 years old, real with character to very character..Good actor..great with dialogue and comedy timing.Wardrobe: CASUAL DAD GET SCRIPT "NOT SHARING"Rate: double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 2:35 PM submitshareAF. AMER MOM-38-46 / SAG / "Not Sharing" / Principal / Female / African American / 38-46African American woman, 38-46 years old. Real with character to very character.Great actress.great comedic timing.Wardrobe: MOM CASUAL GET SCRIPT "NOT SHARING"Rate: double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 2:33 PM submitshareCAUC.DAUGHTER,10-11 / SAG / "plan by the seat of your pants" / Principal / Female / Caucasian / 10-11Caucasian daughter, 10-11 years old, real with character to very character. awkwardness. Braces are good.Wardrobe: CASUAL KID.GET SCRIPT "PLAN BY THE THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS"Rate: double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 2:29 PM submitshareCAUC.BOY-12-14 / SAG / "plan by the seat of your pants" / Principal / Male / Caucasian / 12-14Caucasian boy, 12-14 years old, real with character to very character, awkward, innocent misfit. Great actor..Great with dialogue..Wardrobe: CASUAL KID. GET SCRIPT "PLAN BY THE THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS"Rate: double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 1:16 PM submitshareCAUC.DAD,38-46 / SAG / "plan by the seat of your pants" / Principal / Male / Caucasian / 38-46Caucasian dad, 38-46, real with character to very character. Great with dialogue..There's lots of dialogue..Great comedic timing.Wardrobe: CASUAL DAD GET SCRIPT "PLAN BY THE THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS"Rate: double scaleRole Added 7/15/2013 12:57 PM 

** Please note this is a
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 01:23:00 pm by Boldhunter » Report Spam   Logged
Boldhunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 346


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: July 16, 2013, 01:30:47 pm »

(Had trouble posting/editing on previous post)

 Shocked My concern is why is FEMA doing casting for a PSA "a.s.a.p."?
And why are there no residuals offered to the talent? Perhaps because they're going to run it so much that it will be very expensive?
The scene descriptions are also concerning.  Also, why the need for comedic timing with such serious situations as wpuld require the need for FEMA?.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines