Topic: Obama Signs Defense Bill with Police State Clause
started by: Botto 82
Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 05 2012,9:11 am
Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Reservations'WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.
The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.
He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.
Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.
"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield," Romero added. "The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress or internationally.”
The administration was especially sensitive about the law and about reaction to the president signing it. In addition to enacting the measure while few people were paying attention -- and many opponents still had hopes the president would veto the bill -- the White House added a signing statement specifying that the Obama administration would not detain Americans without trial. The White House also sent out a notice to its online community highlighting Obama's complaints with the law, in a tacit admission that many of the president's more ardent supporters despise the detention provisions.
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in the signing statement.
Presidents issue such statements when they feel a law conflicts with the executive's constitutional powers. Obama criticized them during the Bush administration, but has found the practice useful on a handful of occasions.
In this case, Obama argued that the changes Congress made to the bill affirm only authorities that the Bush and Obama administrations have already claimed in fighting terrorism. But he noted that the codification of those powers in law was unnecessary and perhaps harmful. And he insisted he would not use the powers to detain citizens without trial.
"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama wrote. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My administration will interpret section 1021 [of the bill] in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
Civil liberties advocates like Romero pointed out that once the provisions are law, however, they will be available to a President Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or any future president, who could choose to use the powers granted more aggressively.
"We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court," said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today."
Because of the provisions specifying that the new legislation does not change current law, the new law leaves the authority it grants open to interpretation and to the possibility -- albeit in very difficult circumstances -- of someone challenging a detention through the courts.
"Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority," Romero said. "But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created, because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA's detention authority."
Obama also said he will not abide by the law's requirement to detain terror suspects using the military.
"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat," Obama said. "While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations."
Finally, he rejected a number of other provisions, saying the White House is concerned they interfere with the president's constitutional powers and ability to fight terrorism.
"My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office," Obama warned.
< HuffPo Article >
Posted by grassman on Jan. 05 2012,9:25 am
The terrorists are slowly turning the U.S. into their own play ground. We are losing our rights as we speak. The U.S. is becoming what we have been fighting against. 
See what happens when you do not control WHO comes into your country. 
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 05 2012,11:38 am
QUOTE
Guantánamo Forever?
By CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR
"IN his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week.
This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.
A 2nd provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.
Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.
A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut Guantánamo, not extend it.
Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities."
Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar are retired four-star Marine generals.
By CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR
"IN his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week.
This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.
A 2nd provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.
Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.
A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut Guantánamo, not extend it.
Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities."
Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar are retired four-star Marine generals.
Obama’s failure to Veto this is more kowtowing to the rightwing!
signed
#4103912
FEMA Camp 0731-A
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 09 2012,8:39 am
Now they are working on the Enemy Expatriation Act. It would give them the power to strip citizenship of anyone who "supports hostilities against the US" .
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 09 2012,2:28 pm
I haven't read much into this yet. Before international terrorism, our country mostly knew when we were at war and with who. Now the term 'war' is an indeterminate factor. Our Constitution is clear on treason and defined during times of war. QUOTE
any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
HR 3166 states QUOTE
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
I don't see adding this to the Immigration and Nationality Act as sidestepping the Constitution. Rather, they should amend the Constitution to include (or terrorist acts) to Article 3. Instead of stripping citizenship, they Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 09 2012,4:09 pm
And the libbies fall silent...
Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 09 2012,9:29 pm
The White House had lifted a veto threat against the bill after legislators made changes in language involving detainees."Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people," the president said Saturday.
< http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12...OLITICS >
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 11 2012,8:05 am
(MADDOG @ Jan. 09 2012,2:28 pm)
QUOTE
[/quote] I don't see adding this to the Immigration and Nationality Act as sidestepping the Constitution. Rather, they should amend the Constitution to include (or terrorist acts) to Article 3. Instead of stripping citizenship, they could should be charged with treason.
"Hostilities against the US"- pretty broad statement. Some of the politicians have labeled the occupy protestors and tea-partiers as terrorists. In the UK the occupy protestors were put on a terrorist list along with Al Qaeda, by the London Police.
No need to "side-step" the constitution really. If this bill becomes law and some of us are stripped of our citizenship, then the constitution no longer applies for us.
signed:
#2133604
Guantanamo Bay
09593
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 04 2012,11:04 am
I stand corrected from what I said about you not mentioning this Al. You've never mentioned it when we talk about the group of people suing Obama over this though, or how that fact is barely mentioned in mainstream news. Or what the ACLU and every other human rights and Constitution loving organizations have to say about this.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 19 2013,12:33 pm
Obama has signed the 2013 NDAA. Has anyone found a video of his signing statement? I can only find written articles about what he said. I'd like to see video of it. I can't find one. Here's what Rand Paul said about the 2013 NDAA a couple of weeks before it was signed:Ben Swann asks Obama why he's fighting the ruling of a judge who says the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA are unconstitutional. He avoids answering that point and then points the finger at congress for inserting that part.
And I have a few questions about the Social Security office bombing in Arizona in November.
< http://www.abc15.com/dpp...s-in-us >
He's supposedly was not given citizenship. He received a felony back in 2008. I don't know how these things work so I'm wondering if anyone can help me out. Can a noncitizen be sentenced with a felony? They don't get sent back to wherever they came from?- I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
The felony he received in 2008 was for aggravated harassment. Harassment is a felony?
The biggest question I have is, why isn't the mainstream national media all over this story? They barely mention it.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 19 2013,12:56 pm
Sorry, forgot to add another question about this incident. Why is he being charged with :An Iraqi man charged with detonating a homemade explosive device outside an Arizona Social Security Administration office building pleaded not guilty on Tuesday.
Abdullatif Ali Aldosary was indicted last week by a federal grand jury on charges of maliciously damaging federal property by means of explosives and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
-----------
I would think this would fit into some sort of "act of terrorism".
< http://www.abc15.com/dpp...n-court >
Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 20 2013,12:41 am
Homeland Security, which responded in a letter that Aldosary's case had been put on hold "pursuant to the terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility" under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.< http://www.abc15.com/dpp...n-court >
< http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/hs/mhc/default.aspx >
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 20 2013,5:14 am
(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,12:41 am)
QUOTE
Homeland Security, which responded in a letter that Aldosary's case had been put on hold "pursuant to the terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility" under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
< http://www.abc15.com/dpp...n-court >
< http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/hs/mhc/default.aspx >
< http://www.abc15.com/dpp...n-court >
< http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/hs/mhc/default.aspx >
Al, that is in reference to why he was not given citizenship. It has nothing to do with what he did in November. It's what he did in Iraq.
QUOTE
Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)
Generally, any individual who is a member of a “terrorist organization” or who has engaged or engages in terrorism-related activity as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is “inadmissible” (not allowed to enter) the United States and is ineligible for most immigration benefits.
Generally, any individual who is a member of a “terrorist organization” or who has engaged or engages in terrorism-related activity as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is “inadmissible” (not allowed to enter) the United States and is ineligible for most immigration benefits.
< http://www.uscis.gov/portal...60aRCRD >
That also says those people are "not allowed to enter the United States". But he got here somehow.
This is the entire paragraph from that article:
Aldosary had sought help from U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar's office last year in obtaining permanent residency. Gosar has said he contacted Homeland Security, which responded in a letter that Aldosary's case had been put on hold "pursuant to the terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility" under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 15 2013,1:36 pm
QUOTE
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
---
The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.
Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer.
The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
---
The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.
Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer.
The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.
< http://www.longislandpress.com/2013...-effect >
Posted by dualheart on May 22 2013,2:34 am
he shouldn't do that
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jul. 01 2013,2:37 pm
Wasn't sure where to put this.Alternative sites are all abuzz with this:
QUOTE
In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events.
< http://en.mchs.ru/news/item/434203/ >
Is that a real Russian government website and document? And what exactly does that mean?
I thought we were close to going to war with Russia over Iran and Syria.
Anyone have Word? I don't. This will only open with that program. 8 down on the list of this search page
< https://www.google.com/search?...bih=609 >
titled : Protocol - Federal Emergency Management Agency
I'm not even sure if that's what I'm looking for.
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 01 2013,4:29 pm
You're wondering if us sane folk has any info on some garbage from one of your goofy ass conspiracy sites? 
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jul. 01 2013,5:12 pm
(Liberal @ Jul. 01 2013,4:29 pm)
QUOTE
You're wondering if us sane folk has any info on some garbage from one of your goofy ass conspiracy sites?
Um, I asked if that link was an official Russian government website.
QUOTE
Is that a real Russian government website and document?
Are you still having problems with reading comprehension?
As far as I can tell it is an official Russian government website, but I'm not 100% sure, so that is why I asked if anyone else knows.
And if it is a real official government website, I'd really like to know more about that Russian-US partnership. I would like to know how Russia can send us "security" at mass events... and what sorts of mass events? Russian military people?
Yeah, I'd like to know more about this.
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 01 2013,10:33 pm
Do you know what the word "training" means?Or are you're suggesting our military currently deals with "security at mass events" and they're going to let the Russians assist them? Then you wonder why people think your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
Just out of curiosity, how many conspiracy theories have you believed over the last year?
Posted by Santorini on Jul. 01 2013,11:23 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Jul. 01 2013,5:12 pm)
QUOTE
(Liberal @ Jul. 01 2013,4:29 pm)
QUOTE
You're wondering if us sane folk has any info on some garbage from one of your goofy ass conspiracy sites?
Um, I asked if that link was an official Russian government website.
QUOTE
Is that a real Russian government website and document?
Are you still having problems with reading comprehension?
As far as I can tell it is an official Russian government website, but I'm not 100% sure, so that is why I asked if anyone else knows.
And if it is a real official government website, I'd really like to know more about that Russian-US partnership. I would like to know how Russia can send us "security" at mass events... and what sorts of mass events? Russian military people?
Yeah, I'd like to know more about this.
Had no clue about this Rosalind... would like to know more.
Here's what's curious...the US is upset about Snowden leaks...at the same time FEMA or the US basically signs up Russia to provide security at some events
What is the UN now in charge of cross-training expeditions !!
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jul. 02 2013,1:43 am
(Liberal @ Jul. 01 2013,10:33 pm)
QUOTE
Do you know what the word "training" means?
Or are you're suggesting our military currently deals with "security at mass events" and they're going to let the Russians assist them? Then you wonder why people think your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
Just out of curiosity, how many conspiracy theories have you believed over the last year?
Or are you're suggesting our military currently deals with "security at mass events" and they're going to let the Russians assist them? Then you wonder why people think your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
Just out of curiosity, how many conspiracy theories have you believed over the last year?
It says "training of rescuers" it goes on to say "provision of security at mass events". Do you know what the word provision means?
Are you suggesting our military doesn't deal with security at mass events? That's why I'm asking what "mass events" means.
Some army was sent during Hurricane Katrina. TSA was at the Vikings Stadium during a game in December for some reason.
QUOTE
Then you wonder why people think your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
You and pepi... like I told pepi, it's a relief when certain people on this forum call me dumb or crazy.
QUOTE
Just out of curiosity, how many conspiracy theories have you believed over the last year?
Just out of curiosity, how many of my "conspiracy theories" did you end up looking like the crazy person while you tried to debunk information? I'm not the one who looks like a lying, spinning, delusional crazy person. You are. And I'm not the one making you look that way. You are.
Santorini:
QUOTE
Here's what's curious...the US is upset about Snowden leaks...at the same time FEMA or the US basically signs up Russia to provide security at some events What is the UN now in charge of cross-training expeditions !!
What is the UN now in charge of cross-training expeditions !!It is weird, all the aggression between the two countries over Snowden, Iran and Syria, but we're signing agreements to help each other out. Weird. And I absolutely can not find this on the FEMA or any other US government website, that's why I'm wondering if that is an official Russian government site. It sure seems to be, I wish I could read Russian.
Santorini:
QUOTE
What is the UN now in charge of cross-training expeditions !!
I have no idea what is going on with this. It all just seems very very weird.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 02 2013,9:38 am
In July 2008 presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama stated that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”from facebook:
conspiracy 1
QUOTE
Dear friends, the following is a copy of my correspondence with Senator Cornyn concerning the arming of the DHS for war against the citizens of our nation. You are each encouraged to copy and properly amend this letter to send to your own senators and members of the U.S. House. Further, I am somewhat overwhelmed at the response to my posts leading up to this letter on this issue. At this point almost 3,000 of you have shared my original post, I have 994 new friends requests, 61 messages, and 70 new comments to process. Please be patient with me and pray that this window of communication remains open to all of us as we respond to this threat against our Constitution and our people. I am awed by you, by your positive response, and your wonderful support. We each have a role to play in standing against this present tyranny. Part of that proper response is sending them a letter like this from YOU, and following it up to make sure it remains a "hot button" issue that must be resolved. God bless you as you honor your oaths and your obligations as citizens of this free nation. May we once again know honorable leadership and peace at home. With all sincerity and respect--Resolved, Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army, Retired.
The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.
Dear Senator Cornyn,
It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.
Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”--Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
the Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.
This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.
The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!
Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.
I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.
We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!
Resolved,
Captain Terry M. Hestilow
United States Army, Retired
Fort Worth, Texas
March 23, 2013
The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.
Dear Senator Cornyn,
It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.
Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”--Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
the Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.
This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.
The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!
Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.
I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.
We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!
Resolved,
Captain Terry M. Hestilow
United States Army, Retired
Fort Worth, Texas
March 23, 2013
Conspiracy 2
conspiracy 3
< Members of Congress introduce bill (AMMO) aimed at fringe conspiracy theory. >
Now we wait for the Reichstag Fire.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 03 2013,11:50 am
Whoa, dude. Now this is another conspiracy. Better batten down the hatch on this one, it's gonna make you wobble.You still wearing socks?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jul. 06 2013,9:14 am
MADDOG, in the first video you embedded in post 22, the woman talks about National Parks being posted as UN World Heritage Sites, I'd never heard of that before. So far that's the only part of that video I've been able to check out. Thank you for that video. I've been checking into the UN World Heritage Sites, it seemed very odd to me. At least 21 of our National Parks and Monuments are on that list. The use of UN military is one of the things that can be requested for these sites, during conflict/natural disasters and social unrest. Apparently if the US requests UN military for any of these sites, they can get it.
I just came across this:
QUOTE
In the case of the Okapi Wildlife Reserve, the World Heritage Centre contacted the United
Nations (UN) forces in DRC to send a military mission together with the DRC army to secure
the area and worked with the management authority to mobil
ize funding to address the
emergency situation through the Rapid Response Facility, the World Heritage Fund and
extrabudgetary resources.
Nations (UN) forces in DRC to send a military mission together with the DRC army to secure
the area and worked with the management authority to mobil
ize funding to address the
emergency situation through the Rapid Response Facility, the World Heritage Fund and
extrabudgetary resources.
What kind of double-speak is this?:
QUOTE
In the case of Timbuktu and the Tomb of Askia
(Mali)
, UNESCO prepared a Heritage map
and a passport which were printed in about 8,000 copies and distributed to all the armed
forced that intervene in January 2013. The preparation of these documents has contributed
to preserve the World Heritage properties from further destruction during the military
interventions. The Director-General has also created a UNESCO special fund to help
rehabilitate the
World Heritage
properties once peace is ensured.
(Mali)
, UNESCO prepared a Heritage map
and a passport which were printed in about 8,000 copies and distributed to all the armed
forced that intervene in January 2013. The preparation of these documents has contributed
to preserve the World Heritage properties from further destruction during the military
interventions. The Director-General has also created a UNESCO special fund to help
rehabilitate the
World Heritage
properties once peace is ensured.
Page 6:
< http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7B-Add-en.pdf >
What does the highlighted part mean? 8,000 copies of a Heritage map and passports?
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 08 2013,8:48 am
So now the O'Bambino organization has laid the groundwork for an army based from DHS, arming them with MRAPs and ballistic tipped and hollow point rounds banned by the United Nations. Barack's private army is now < protecting his fold > from protesters known as Tea Party members.Treason was the next step when he signed an agreement with Russia and Putin (remember when he said wait until after I'm re-elected). This agreement will put Russian Civil Defense troops on U.S. soil to "administer and help maintain security at large events."
On June 25, 2013 in Washington, D.C. the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry, Russia’s equivalent to FEMA, < signed an agreement with FEMA > to allow Russian “experts” to engage in “monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events.”
So at the next Super Bowl or World Series, instead of off duty police officers or at the worst, O'Bambino's personal gladiators, you might just be seeing Russians Security Forces working the bleachers. Who knows, maybe at the next Louisiana hurricane disaster instead of Mayor Ray Nagin confiscating your guns, it could be?
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 08 2013,10:09 am
So is the conspiracy thing a weekly occurrence? It's all double speak if you're not smart enough to understand what you're reading.
QUOTE
In response to the conflict taking place in the northern regions of Mali since April 2012, UNESCO, in collaboration with the National Directorate of Cultural Heritage in Mali and the International Centre for Earthen Architecture (CRAterre), has produced two publications on the cultural heritage of Timbuktu, Gao and Kidal. The first is an illustrated map with detailed texts in two f
ormats (A3-doublesided and poster versions). The second publication is a brochure entitled "Passeport pour le patrimoine” (Heritage Passport). Available in French, they provide detailed information on the location and the importance of cultural sites in the northern region of Mali. They were developed to raise awareness among the armed forces, NGOs, the international community and local communities about the importance of safeguarding these heritage sites.
< http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/981 >
Russian soldiers at the Superbowl is quite a leap from emergency management training.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jul. 08 2013,10:37 am
The thing about this, if it is true. What legal authority would russian troops have in the US? NONE.Since they are a foreign force, their authority amounts to ZERO, not to mention some folks just might shoot a few ruskies, just because they can.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 08 2013,10:40 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Jul. 08 2013,10:37 am)
QUOTE
[...]not to mention some folks just might shoot a few ruskies, just because they can.
That would be just plain stupid. Then again, this is America, where Stupid is King.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jul. 08 2013,10:44 am
(Botto 82 @ Jul. 08 2013,10:40 am)
QUOTE
(Grinning_Dragon @ Jul. 08 2013,10:37 am)
QUOTE
[...]not to mention some folks just might shoot a few ruskies, just because they can.
That would be just plain stupid. Then again, this is America, where Stupid is King.
Why? Foreign troops on US soil, being dicks to the locals.
Yeah, I can see it, not to mention the lack of Constitutional understanding by the russian troops.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 08 2013,10:54 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Jul. 08 2013,10:44 am)
QUOTE
(Botto 82 @ Jul. 08 2013,10:40 am)
QUOTE
(Grinning_Dragon @ Jul. 08 2013,10:37 am)
QUOTE
[...]not to mention some folks just might shoot a few ruskies, just because they can.
That would be just plain stupid. Then again, this is America, where Stupid is King.
Why? Foreign troops on US soil, being dicks to the locals.
Yeah, I can see it, not to mention the lack of Constitutional understanding by the russian troops.
You're kidding, right? Pick any ten Americans at random, and I'll show you nine people with an equally limited understanding of the Constitution.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jul. 08 2013,11:23 am
(Botto 82 @ Jul. 08 2013,10:54 am)
QUOTE
(Grinning_Dragon @ Jul. 08 2013,10:44 am)
QUOTE
(Botto 82 @ Jul. 08 2013,10:40 am)
QUOTE
(Grinning_Dragon @ Jul. 08 2013,10:37 am)
QUOTE
[...]not to mention some folks just might shoot a few ruskies, just because they can.
That would be just plain stupid. Then again, this is America, where Stupid is King.
Why? Foreign troops on US soil, being dicks to the locals.
Yeah, I can see it, not to mention the lack of Constitutional understanding by the russian troops.
You're kidding, right? Pick any ten Americans at random, and I'll show you nine people with an equally limited understanding of the Constitution.
OK, fair enough, but I don't think that many people are that ignorant of the Constitution. Another issue to garner is if you go by the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act, the use of foreign troops would be in direct conflict of the act.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 08 2013,12:56 pm
(Liberal @ Jul. 08 2013,10:09 am)
QUOTE
Russian soldiers at the Superbowl is quite a leap from emergency management training.
Just taking it from the Ruskie website.
QUOTE
The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices.
In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events.
In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events.
A joint emergency training exercise in Colorado is a long way from Tennessee State Guardsmen stopping DHS armored vehicles from Kentucky with troops wearing very distinct uniforms for the Deptment of Homeland Security that were not recognized and the men they stopped were Eastern European.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 09 2013,2:27 pm
Some projections indicate that the U.S. Military budget is unsustainable. Couple that with the globalist mindset that the U.N. will be the world's governing body within the next 20 years, and suspicions like this don't seem that far removed from a coming reality. QUOTE
Counterintuitively, as their power wanes, empires often plunge into ill-advised military misadventures. This phenomenon is known among historians of empire as “micro-militarism” and seems to involve psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying new territories, however briefly and catastrophically. These operations, irrational even from an imperial point of view, often yield hemorrhaging expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the loss of power.
Embattled empires through the ages suffer an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle. In 413 BCE, a weakened Athens sent 200 ships to be slaughtered in Sicily. In 1921, a dying imperial Spain dispatched 20,000 soldiers to be massacred by Berber guerrillas in Morocco. In 1956, a fading British Empire destroyed its prestige by attacking Suez. And in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. With the hubris that marks empires over the millennia, Washington has increased its troops in Afghanistan to 100,000, expanded the war into Pakistan, and extended its commitment to 2014 and beyond, courting disasters large and small in this guerilla-infested, nuclear-armed graveyard of empires.
< How America will Collapse by 2025 - Salon.com >
Embattled empires through the ages suffer an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle. In 413 BCE, a weakened Athens sent 200 ships to be slaughtered in Sicily. In 1921, a dying imperial Spain dispatched 20,000 soldiers to be massacred by Berber guerrillas in Morocco. In 1956, a fading British Empire destroyed its prestige by attacking Suez. And in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. With the hubris that marks empires over the millennia, Washington has increased its troops in Afghanistan to 100,000, expanded the war into Pakistan, and extended its commitment to 2014 and beyond, courting disasters large and small in this guerilla-infested, nuclear-armed graveyard of empires.
< How America will Collapse by 2025 - Salon.com >
"The age of nations must end. The governments of nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms."
- U.N. World Constitution
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 09 2013,3:02 pm
So you believe that the TN State militia stopped federal vehicles and found them occupied by soldiers in uniforms that they didn't recognize and they were speaking with an Eastern European accent and they did nothing? What good is that militia?Since when does a state militia have any authority to stop a vehicle especially a marked federal law enforcement vehicle?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jul. 09 2013,5:52 pm
The state militia/guard has the backing of the TN govt and is a state volunteer guard, under command of the governor. This is where they get their authority to stop vehicles on TN roads, you know 10th Amendment and all.There are 22 states that have a state run volunteer militia/guard.
Looks like you have been in your lil bubble a wee bit to long.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 09 2013,9:42 pm
(Liberal @ Jul. 09 2013,3:02 pm)
QUOTE
So you believe that the TN State militia stopped federal vehicles and found them occupied by soldiers in uniforms that they didn't recognize and they were speaking with an Eastern European accent and they did nothing? What good is that militia?
Since when does a state militia have any authority to stop a vehicle especially a marked federal law enforcement vehicle? So you believe that the TN State militia stopped federal vehicles and found them occupied by soldiers in uniforms that they didn't recognize and they were speaking with an Eastern European accent
There can be a little stretching of any story. I believe damn straight that the Tennessee Militia stopped the Bambinos' Federalis and glad they did. I'd hope that when or if the Barack's personal DHS army trys out Texas or < Arizona > they get at least the same results. The governors are under fire from Bam Bam because they are controlled not by the president, but each individual governor. Since when does a state militia have any authority to stop a vehicle especially a marked federal law enforcement vehicle? So you believe that the TN State militia stopped federal vehicles and found them occupied by soldiers in uniforms that they didn't recognize and they were speaking with an Eastern European accent
QUOTE
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jul. 10 2013,3:38 am
From MADDOG's post:QUOTE
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
It's kind of difficult to prevent misconstruction or abuse of it's powers when they hide most everything or lie when things do get out in the open.
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 10 2013,12:35 pm
Unlike you two wannabes I've actually enforced federal law in the states of KY an TN and if a militia group ever tried to stop us there would have been a firefight and I guarantee the militia would have been outgunned.I notice you kooks never offer up a credible source for these crazy stories.
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 10 2013,1:16 pm
^ wow, Rambo. 
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 10 2013,3:14 pm
I wasn't aware that military police had jurisdiction over civilians off base?Exactly what is the authority of the military over civilian or state governments not being enforced by martial law?
QUOTE
I notice you kooks never offer up a credible source
I think you recently linked to < scribd.com >.
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jul. 10 2013,3:49 pm
(Liberal @ Jul. 10 2013,12:35 pm)
QUOTE
Unlike you two wannabes I've actually enforced federal law in the states of KY an TN and if a militia group ever tried to stop us there would have been a firefight and I guarantee the militia would have been outgunned.
I notice you kooks never offer up a credible source for these crazy stories.
I notice you kooks never offer up a credible source for these crazy stories.
It is only dhs, a bunch of military wanna-bes, why so butt hurt?
I also think there is also defining rules in regards to stopping a federal military transport vs a federal no nothing agency like dhs.
If you were stopped by a sanctioned state militia/guard and opened fire on said group, Im guessing there would be hell to pay, being stopped does NOT constitute as a threat. Nice try rambo.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 10 2013,10:06 pm
(Liberal @ Jul. 10 2013,12:35 pm)
QUOTE
Unlike you two wannabes I've actually enforced federal law in the states of KY an TN and if a militia group ever tried to stop us there would have been a firefight and I guarantee the militia would have been outgunned.
I notice you kooks never offer up a credible source for these crazy stories.
I notice you kooks never offer up a credible source for these crazy stories.
If it would have been NG or regular army I highly doubt there would have been any checkpoints the forces would have passed. The militia wouldn't have been there. They would have known of something going on. Whether it would have been passed from local LEOs or directly.
It's called cooperation.
If the stinkin' DHS wants to skulk around in secrecy, so be it. They got caught and MM doesn't want to even mention it.
Firefight,
O.K.
Posted by Liberal on Jul. 10 2013,11:10 pm
Wow, that made even less sense than your governors post last night. Have you thought about getting checked for sundowning syndrome?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jul. 11 2013,6:49 am
^Awww, bless his lil heart. The serf-slave defending his federal masters in such a Stockholm manner. That's so sweet
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 11 2013,5:05 pm
QUOTE
< Russian planes operating out of one of our top-secret nuclear bases >
July 11, 2013
Both the United States and Russian government have publically announced that armed foreign troops are present on American soil. Their mission is to follow command orders to keep Americans under control if the SHTF. This is all part of the United Nations' Agenda 21. Barack Obama continues to disarm the American military. In a recent speech in Germany he called for the unilateral destruction of a major part of America's nuclear arsenal.
There have been multiple civilian sightings of strange planes landing at American Air Force bases, all carrying UN troops and/or having UN markings (or none). My husband, a Vietnam vet, has been back and forth to Overton-Brooks VA Medical Hospital three times a week this month. Barksdale Air Force Base, one of the most secure Strategic Air Command (SAC) bases in the nation, has had unusual C-130s or C-136s fly into Barksdale AFB and land at all hours. The interstate runs in front of the side and front of the base and is clearly visible with no restraints. (Barksdale is where President George W. Bush landed on 9/11, it is such a safe, secure, and well-guarded installation.) These flights have been reported by other citizens and several of the military men who work inside the base have reported that the UN troops are given US military clothing and name tags. When our servicemen question this, the soldiers are told they did NOT see what they just saw. Base operations refused to confirm or deny or discuss these sightings.
July 11, 2013
Both the United States and Russian government have publically announced that armed foreign troops are present on American soil. Their mission is to follow command orders to keep Americans under control if the SHTF. This is all part of the United Nations' Agenda 21. Barack Obama continues to disarm the American military. In a recent speech in Germany he called for the unilateral destruction of a major part of America's nuclear arsenal.
There have been multiple civilian sightings of strange planes landing at American Air Force bases, all carrying UN troops and/or having UN markings (or none). My husband, a Vietnam vet, has been back and forth to Overton-Brooks VA Medical Hospital three times a week this month. Barksdale Air Force Base, one of the most secure Strategic Air Command (SAC) bases in the nation, has had unusual C-130s or C-136s fly into Barksdale AFB and land at all hours. The interstate runs in front of the side and front of the base and is clearly visible with no restraints. (Barksdale is where President George W. Bush landed on 9/11, it is such a safe, secure, and well-guarded installation.) These flights have been reported by other citizens and several of the military men who work inside the base have reported that the UN troops are given US military clothing and name tags. When our servicemen question this, the soldiers are told they did NOT see what they just saw. Base operations refused to confirm or deny or discuss these sightings.
< US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russia's Emergencies Ministry will work together to develop systems to protect people and territory from cosmic impacts. >
< http://www.eutimes.net >
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2013,5:24 pm
If that were true it should make you kooks happy considering how fond of Putin you seem to be lately.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 11 2013,6:28 pm
^Not really fond of Putin, just kinda jealous that Russia's leader walks and talks like he's got a set. 
Not like the whiney little bitch we have
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 11 2013,8:56 pm
(Liberal @ Sep. 11 2013,5:24 pm)
QUOTE
If that were true it should make you kooks happy considering how fond of Putin you seem to be lately.
QUOTE
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead.
Sorry, bud, but that's not in my beliefs.
Posted by alcitizens on Sep. 11 2013,9:13 pm
Syria chemical plan can only work if U.S. rejects force: Putin< http://www.reuters.com/article...0130910 >
The threat of force by the U.S. has the radical right-winger Putin turning into a Liberal..
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 12 2013,3:41 am
^ more like opportunist.
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 12 2013,9:42 am
(Liberal @ Sep. 11 2013,5:24 pm)
QUOTE
If that were true it should make you kooks happy considering how fond of Putin you seem to be lately.
The only thing I see about Putin that I find more humorous that attracting is the FACT that he's beat Obama. He has the upper hand and knows it.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 15 2013,9:24 pm
The upper hand? Obama says get rid of your chemical weapons or we'll use military force. Putin tells Syria to listen to Obama and give up their chemical weapons, and the kooks think he has the upper hand? Then they wonder why they get called morons.If Putin had the upper hand Syria wouldn't be unilaterally disarming.
Posted by grassman on Sep. 15 2013,10:33 pm
Putin lies about the size of the fish he catches. He did not catch a 20 plus northern. What a dick.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 16 2013,5:13 am
(Liberal @ Sep. 15 2013,9:24 pm)
QUOTE
The upper hand? Obama says get rid of your chemical weapons or we'll use military force. Putin tells Syria to listen to Obama and give up their chemical weapons, and the kooks think he has the upper hand? Then they wonder why they get called morons.
If Putin had the upper hand Syria wouldn't be unilaterally disarming.
If Putin had the upper hand Syria wouldn't be unilaterally disarming.
And you say religion is for the weak minded,
You do believe don't you
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 16 2013,5:21 am
(grassman @ Sep. 15 2013,10:33 pm)
QUOTE
Putin lies about the size of the fish he catches. He did not catch a 20 plus northern. What a dick.
20"s, I caught three last weekend
20lbs? A fish of dreams.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 16 2013,7:46 am
So using your vast knowledge of fish, do you think your hero was lying about catching a 20" Northern, or a 20kg Northern?
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 16 2013,11:22 am
Since when have I claimed to be an expert on fish? If I sit on the boat all day and catch nothing it's still a wonderful day.You should try it sometime Lib, probably wouldn't be so crabby.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 16 2013,12:26 pm
I fish several times a week in the summer, and during the winter I make tackle for myself and friends, in fact I always have a pole and tackle in the car. I stopped down to hatch bridge yesterday with an ultralight setup and a little crappie tube and I somehow foul hooked a big carp in the tail. It took 5 minutes just to get a look at him, and another 5 minutes to land it since I left my net in the car.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 16 2013,12:39 pm
^ cool 
Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 15 2014,10:08 am
< Heavy-duty military equipment given to police >QUOTE
WASHINGTON, Ia. – The police chief has yet to mount flashing lights and a siren and plaster his department's official logo on the sides of his new vehicle.
Not that Greg Goodman needs such window dressings so that this 49,000-pound, 10-foot-tall, six-wheel-drive behemoth will cause necks to crane and local motorists to veer out of the way.
Twenty-nine years ago when he joined the Washington Police Department, Goodman never imagined he would crave such a thing. The newest and by far bulkiest addition to his fleet makes a Chevy Tahoe SUV look like a Hot Wheels collectible: a fully armored military vehicle designed to prowl a desert war zone.
This MRAP — pronounced "em-rap" and short for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected — is the talk of southeast Iowa.
Military recycling after more than a decade of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to this: Through a federal program, seven of these metal beasts have been donated to Iowa law enforcement agencies — five of them in recent weeks.
Police departments in Mason City and Storm Lake also have received MRAPs, as well as sheriffs in Buena Vista, Jasper, Scott and Story counties.
Not that Greg Goodman needs such window dressings so that this 49,000-pound, 10-foot-tall, six-wheel-drive behemoth will cause necks to crane and local motorists to veer out of the way.
Twenty-nine years ago when he joined the Washington Police Department, Goodman never imagined he would crave such a thing. The newest and by far bulkiest addition to his fleet makes a Chevy Tahoe SUV look like a Hot Wheels collectible: a fully armored military vehicle designed to prowl a desert war zone.
This MRAP — pronounced "em-rap" and short for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected — is the talk of southeast Iowa.
Military recycling after more than a decade of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to this: Through a federal program, seven of these metal beasts have been donated to Iowa law enforcement agencies — five of them in recent weeks.
Police departments in Mason City and Storm Lake also have received MRAPs, as well as sheriffs in Buena Vista, Jasper, Scott and Story counties.
QUOTE
The Washington City Council took convincing before it approved this controversial freebie, and Councilman Robert Shellmyer held firm last month with the lone "no" vote that he wears as a badge of honor.
"We're being laughed at," said Shellmyer, 78. "I went to Ainsworth the other day, and everybody wants to ask me if we're sleeping better at night now that we have the 'tank.' "
It seems like a worthy chicken-or-egg debate: Has civilian life gotten dangerous enough that small towns should be equipped with Army gear? Or is this a militarization of local police that escalates tension?
Some $4.3 billion worth of "demilitarized" property — including more than $449 million last year — has made its way to domestic city streets since 1997 through the "1033 program" run by the federal Law Enforcement Support Office.
That includes 1,119 weapons that have been distributed to 220 law enforcement agencies in Iowa.
Goodman, for instance, previously received two M-16s plus night vision scopes, helmets and breathing masks through the same program.
"We're being laughed at," said Shellmyer, 78. "I went to Ainsworth the other day, and everybody wants to ask me if we're sleeping better at night now that we have the 'tank.' "
It seems like a worthy chicken-or-egg debate: Has civilian life gotten dangerous enough that small towns should be equipped with Army gear? Or is this a militarization of local police that escalates tension?
Some $4.3 billion worth of "demilitarized" property — including more than $449 million last year — has made its way to domestic city streets since 1997 through the "1033 program" run by the federal Law Enforcement Support Office.
That includes 1,119 weapons that have been distributed to 220 law enforcement agencies in Iowa.
Goodman, for instance, previously received two M-16s plus night vision scopes, helmets and breathing masks through the same program.
Just in case there is a terrorist attack in small town Iowa or maybe to break up the school prom keggers.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 15 2014,10:42 am
^^^ there are a lot of cows in Iowa, it's peace of mind in case they should break free and run amuck.