jump to last post 1-40 of 40 discussions (167 posts)

No Trial No Lawyer No Jury Martial Law!!!

  1. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of
    the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to
    arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

    “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this
    president—and every future president — the power to order the military
    to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the
    world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by
    the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even
    within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU
    Washington Legislative Office.


    http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=1562515

    Yes the link is from snopes and this Legislation would completely make the Constitution worthless.  This will be the DEATH of America and the creation of AMERIKA Comrades!!

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, it's not "from Snopes".  It's from a message board on Snopes, which is populated by the same people you'd find anywhere.  Nothing there is necessarily fact checked.

      However, the bill does seem to present a threat.  The question is, how do your Congress-critters feel about it? 

      http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur … fine-being asks you to contact your Senator, but many of them have already stated their objections. 

      If yours has not, then yes, give them an earful. 

      Sheesh, look at that - RB and PC on the same side.  Second time in history, folks, get your tickets now!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, the defecation of liberty has gotten so bad that even Pcunix is against it.

        Huh!

      2. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think this is something that just about every citizen would be against!

        1. Reality Bytes profile image89
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.”

          JFK


          This is exactly what they are trying to achieve.  A hostile populace to bring in to line.

          Just because atrocities have never occured in the US before does not mean they will never happen.  I forget the phsych term for this?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Are you sure about that?

            1. Reality Bytes profile image89
              Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Lincoln. the Dictator did by executive order arrest and detain people without trials, lawyers or any resemblance of Habeus Corpus.

              John Adams prior to that did pass the alien and sedition acts.

              In our lifetime nothing like this has happened to citizens of the U.S.A.  At least not to my knowledge.

              If you have info John share it please.  I am quite interested in this.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The one that sprang to mind, and possibly not in the way you were thinking, was Kent State University back in the day, when several protesters were summarily executed by state guards.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                During WWII American citizens were detain because their ancestors were born in Japan!  How soon we forget!

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There were even sound reasons to be concerned about Japanese intelligence operations.  The Black Dragons and Black Tide were active all around the Pacific Rim but German Americans were not shipped to camps despite an actual incursion by Germans and German-Americans actually joining the Wehrmacht.  Did the Great FDR have harbor racial prejudices against the Japanese?  After all he was a "One Percenter" of the highest order with a racist, Nazi sympathizer ally in Joseph Kennedy - another "One Percenter."

                  1. Doc Snow profile image96
                    Doc Snowposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Unfortunately, there was widespread anti-Asian prejudice in North America (and beyond) since the building of the trans-continental railways at least.  There was supposed to be a "Yellow Peril."

                    FDR arguably deserves some blame, but he was probably more representative of social attitudes than the reverse in this.

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Speak for yourself - I didn't forget squat.

                  I have been warning everyone of these problems since I started HubPages.

                  1. Reality Bytes profile image89
                    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So have I, unfortunately we were correct!

                  2. American View profile image54
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So are you saying you are against taking terrorists into custody?

              3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image90
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Lincoln is the guy who successfully freed Americans from the filth of Europe's banking cartel.

              4. Druid Dude profile image59
                Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The Japanese internment camps on the west coast WWII. The reservation policies dealing with the indigenous people. Two examples of why this is not a far fetched idea, and two examples why our government isn't to be trusted. I speak freely because I am already marked.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image89
                  Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You have a right to speak freely!

                  It is the Statists which feel that the government can do no wrong. They feel that we the people of America are subjects of the government instead of the government being servants of the people!

        2. recommend1 profile image65
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          and this is what the OWS thing is about at its core, the citizens are no longer the government and this would be decided by people who do not represent the wishes of the people any more.

      3. Reality Bytes profile image89
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would wager that we both want the same things out of life, we only disagree on how to get there.  The destination is the same smile

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well it is about time to bring back that time honored practice.  After all, if we were Japanese and that hero of democracy, FDR, was President we could count on Democrats to protect our rights.  Look at the names in the ACLU posting regarding this bill.  John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the two "Republicans" - despised enough by conservatives, that they sat on their votes in 2008.

      No one should be surprised by any Democrat name on that list - after all FDR was one of theirs and didn't Obama just execute al-Awalaki via remote control?

    3. profile image56
      belstaffleatherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. Reality Bytes profile image89
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Kennedy spoke of secret societies controlling things right before his assassination.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA

        The best is Andrew Jackson, except for his history with the Indians, he was stellar at taking on the banks.

  2. cheaptrick profile image75
    cheaptrickposted 5 years ago

    Conspiracy theories are silly and advanced by nut jobs unless you distill them and connect the dots.This[though it's not a C theory]information is another dot to be connected.
    I've said it before[and was laughed out of the forums]and I'll say it now,
    Within eighteen months there will be martial law in America.
    Consider the old analogy about how you cook a frog.
    Slowly,step by step.
    "Inch by inch me catchy monkey".

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Was it eighteen months ago that you predicted that or longer back?

    2. American View profile image54
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How is this for you conspiracy dudes. Perhaps what you are seeing is not a step by step movement to martial law, but a step by step movement of a man who wants to suspend elections indefinatly and remain President.  Enjoy

      1. Reality Bytes profile image89
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        For this to occur there would be need of a false flag scenario to appear.  Another 9/11 type strategy to get the population in fear so that the already agreed upon response can be unveiled.

        Problem + Reaction = Solution.

        It has been used throughout history to push forward particular agendas.

  3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image90
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    Dude, America died when J.F.K. was shot in the head for circumventing the eurofilth Rothschild controlled federal reserve.

    Everything since then has been a funeral procession.

  4. maxoxam41 profile image77
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    Another law stating blatantly how much America is a democracy! Do you still believe that America is a land of freedom? Harsh reality!

  5. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    I think it's pretty frightening that this will even be debated in the first place.

  6. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Monday (today) for the beginning of debate.


    The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.  Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.


    http://www.truth-out.org/arrest-mccain- … 1322601515

    I think our military should arrest Congress immediately for high treason!  For insider trading and simply being completely corrupt.

    Then they should arrest the President for taking these actions before the Law was even passed.  Murder and High Treason.

    I want to see Politicians pay for the crimes they have committed against humanity

    1. kirstenblog profile image76
      kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You and me both!

  7. Rochelle Frank profile image88
    Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago

    Snopes has not determined this to be true or untrue-- "still researching"
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/ndaa.asp

    1. Reality Bytes profile image89
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.truth-out.org/arrest-mccain- … 1322601515


      I wish I was a complete shill on this one but unfortunately it is true and if it passes America is DEAD!!

      From the article:

      The creation of a permanent state of war in the "war on terror" is precisely what the Founders warned of the most strenuously.  McCain and Levin have treacherously undertaken to overturn the Bill of Rights of the Constitution permanently through this device.  Since the Constitution, in the Oath of Office, essentially creates a class of criminal, a "domestic enemy" of the "United States Constitution," it is incumbent upon loyal senators to declare treason within their midst, and to direct the Sergeant at Arms to effect the arrest of John McCain and Carl Levin as such domestic enemies.

  8. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Personally, I am quite serious about arrests of any Congressman/woman or anyone else that has taken an Oath to protect the Constitution.  If they support such legislation as this then they are traitors and execution would be too good for them.

    Guantanamo Bay is designed for slugs like this!

    1. kirstenblog profile image76
      kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Poor slugs sad
      Being compared to such filth. At least slugs serve a useful purpose in this world, unlike certain politicians.....

  9. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

    Marcus Tullius Cicero

  10. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Section 1032 (b) states that the law is not applicable to U.S. citizens or to resident aliens:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c … 7:e464889:

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Habee/mel22.

      The issue is with section 1031 and not with 1032.

      From the ACLU web site:
      “Instead, read what one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor <http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428>: "1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland." (1)

      (1) http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secur … fine-being

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        To me, it looks like 1031 defines Law of War, and 1032 says who cannot be covered under Law of War. ??

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think the problem is that the bill seems to say that if we are at war in Afghanistan, the "battlefield" includes your street and mine.

          Of course, knowing whether or not we are officially "at war" in some place where we are killing and being killed is a source of confusion by itself.

          1. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What? Are you suggesting that Congress would write a law that's confusing?? lol

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Of course not.  It's plainly our fault.  That's why they wrote this bill in secret - so as not to confuse us prematurely.  That way, they might have been able to just pass it without any of us noticing.  Too bad that pesky ACLU noticed.

              1. habee profile image90
                habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol

                Have you read anything about Obama's response to this bill?

                1. Pcunix profile image88
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope.  But I've been running around with business meetings the past few days.

        2. FitnezzJim profile image88
          FitnezzJimposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Habee,
          I just grabbed the bill and read it (off the Thomas website).  I agree with your interpretation.  It explicitly states that it is not applicable to US citizens.
          That said, every time I’ve tried reading a Congressional Bill, I’m left with the feeling that I’ve tried to follow a noodle through a spaghetti bowl while it is still being stirred.  It leaves me with the impression that their job security is based on obfuscating a logic tree that associates their laws with who they are applicable too.

          1. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Lol, Jim - I LOVE your pasta analogy!

  11. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I can't find anything about this on any major news outlets.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image89
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Corporations = banks = government = mainstream media.  All the same entity!


      The scariest part is that no news at all is reporting on this.

      Except one, Freedom Watch on FBN with Judge Andrew Napolitano and that is where I saw the story last night.

      8pm every weekday on the Fox Business Network.  Watch him if you can, you will find him a complete libertarian and bipartisan.  He is a strict Constitutionalist.


      http://www.judgenap.com/  His website.  Check him out, I think you will be impressed.

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A Libertarian can't "impress" me.  Frighten me?  Absolutely.  Impress me, never.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image89
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Watch him and see.   The man was a sitting Judge.

          1. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The politics of Libertarians disgust me.  I'm not going to watch someone you think epitomizes that ridiculous philosophy.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image89
              Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, then just go with your opinion of the man with no prior reason.  I could never live my life judging others without seeing it for myself.

              Idc if you watch him but he was the one that broke this story and the Congressional insider trading.

              1. Pcunix profile image88
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No prior reason?

                I KNOW what Libertarians want and I KNOW how much damage that would do to this country.   I don't need to listen to someone spouting off about how wonderful it would be if the Federal government were feeble and the good old boys could do whatever the heck they want without pesky "interference"!

                I can read enough f that nonsense right here, thank you anyway.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image89
                  Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  yeah you better stick with those diehard journalists.  Piers Morgan and Chris Matthews, now there is some cutting edge stories.


                  I feel a tingling Buahhahhhhahhh!!  lol

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Reality, don't waste your time with Pcunix.

            He actually thinks that making it illegal to NOT own health care is a good thing.

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's correct, Evan.

              I also think it ought to be free for everyone and paid for by tax dollars.

              Gosh, what a disgusting concept - caring about other people!

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                HILARIOUS!!!

                Even if Tax Dollars was one person with the crazy name of Tax Dollars - that would mean healthcare would not be free for EVERYONE.

                What an absurd idea.  No human product is free.  Someone must pay.  All actions have one of two origins - voluntary or involuntary.  Since liberals are unwilling to fully finance their "free" give away programs from their own property they must force others to pay for their utopia.

                "One man cannot receive something for which he has not worked unless another man does not receive something  for which he has worked."

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                hey, Pcunix - being poor is bad, it sucks, and it makes everyone around the poor person's life worse as well.

                In fact, being poor negatively affects the economy!

                Let's make it illegal!

                LOLOL

                "The Affordable Standard of Living Act"

                Section 1: The government will make sure that everyone will be able to afford a good standard of living (don't ask for a definition, please. It changes year to year and is completely relative.)

                Section 2: It is illegal to be poor, everyone making below whatever the president says is poor will have to pay $500/month until they get above the poverty level

                Section 3: No. Really. This is all that the health care bill does. I'm just taking "health care" and replacing it with "poverty".

                Section 4: Any state that nullifies this law is a terrorist, and will be bombed.

                Section 5: The Economic laws of Supply and Demand no longer apply to any transaction in the United States, or any transaction dealing with an American citizen. If something costs $500 in another country, they can only sell it to Americans for $50 - the government will pick up the rest of the cost.

                Section 6: Please don't charge us more than what other people are willing to pay, that would be mean.

  12. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    According to a CBS poll done earlier this month, Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low of 9%. Certainly Congress either isn't aware of this or they don't care as they are continuing to attack the rights of the American people, this time with S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.
    http://www.examiner.com/congress-in-dal … itatus-act

    S1867 would overturn Posse Comitatus Act


    This bill would, in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield.” In other words this bill would allow the military to arrest and detain American citizens in America as though they were enemy combatants without having actually been involved in the theater of war.

    According to Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against it, this act would “permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President.”



    Continue reading on Examiner.com S1867 would overturn Posse Comitatus Act - Dallas Congress | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/congress-in-dal … z1fAh9Bqr0

  13. mel22 profile image60
    mel22posted 5 years ago

    Seems its the opposite of how Hitler seized control... He and Himmler took over by controlling internal police power and then putting the military under their party control... This seems like military lobbyists are pursuing military control to usurp internal police control. Pretty soon it won't be just FBI with arresting power at the federal level but CIA as well.

    ... after looking at Habee's post i'm  sure it could not be used internally  but it could lead to broad use in the future which is dangerous.

  14. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    And this was written by an R and a D?? We beg them to work together, and this is what they come up with??

  15. Doc Snow profile image96
    Doc Snowposted 5 years ago

    Oops!  Just started a new topic on this, having overlooked this one.  Sorry 'bout that, chief. . .

    But to answer Habee's question below, this bill will be vetoed if passed.  Which will set up a situation that mainstream media will not ignore. . .

  16. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    It is done, passed awaiting the Presidential Seal.  He promised to Veto this bill.

    Below are a list of traitors.  Each yay vote should be immediately incarcerated and brought to trial as domestic enemies!!  Congress' treason is blatantly open in this bill.  The Sergeant of Arms in Congress needs to make the arrests or the military needs to overturn the entire govt until next Novembers election.  We are being led by a bunch of Oath breaking New World Order prison system shills.  If this were Law today, I could be arrested for printing this.




    Yea:    93    (93%)   
    48    44    1
    Nay:    7    (7%)   
    3    3    1
    Present:    0    (0%)   
    0    0    0
    Not Voting:    0    (0%)   
    0    0    0
    Required:    Simple Majority of 100 votes (=51 votes)
    (Vacancies in Congress will affect vote totals.)



    Alabama
    Yea    AL    Sessions, Jefferson [R]
    Yea    AL    Shelby, Richard [R]
    Alaska
    Yea    AK    Begich, Mark [D]
    Yea    AK    Murkowski, Lisa [R]
    Arizona
    Yea    AZ    Kyl, Jon [R]
    Yea    AZ    McCain, John [R]
    Arkansas
    Yea    AR    Boozman, John [R]
    Yea    AR    Pryor, Mark [D]
    California
    Yea    CA    Boxer, Barbara [D]
    Yea    CA    Feinstein, Dianne [D]
    Colorado
    Yea    CO    Bennet, Michael [D]
    Yea    CO    Udall, Mark [D]
    Connecticut
    Yea    CT    Blumenthal, Richard [D]
    Yea    CT    Lieberman, Joseph [i]
    Delaware
    Yea    DE    Carper, Thomas [D]
    Yea    DE    Coons, Chris [D]
    Florida
    Yea    FL    Nelson, Bill [D]
    Yea    FL    Rubio, Marco [R]
    Georgia
    Yea    GA    Chambliss, Saxby [R]
    Yea    GA    Isakson, John [R]
    Hawaii
    Yea    HI    Akaka, Daniel [D]
    Yea    HI    Inouye, Daniel [D]
    Idaho
    Yea    ID    Crapo, Michael [R]
    Yea    ID    Risch, James [R]
    Illinois
    Yea    IL    Durbin, Richard [D]
    Yea    IL    Kirk, Mark [R]
    Indiana
    Yea    IN    Coats, Daniel [R]
    Yea    IN    Lugar, Richard [R]
    Iowa
    Yea    IA    Grassley, Charles [R]
    Nay    IA    Harkin, Thomas [D]
    Kansas
    Yea    KS    Moran, Jerry [R]
    Yea    KS    Roberts, Pat [R]
    Kentucky
    Yea    KY    McConnell, Mitch [R]
    Nay    KY    Paul, Rand [R]
    Louisiana
    Yea    LA    Landrieu, Mary [D]
    Yea    LA    Vitter, David [R]
    Maine
    Yea    ME    Collins, Susan [R]
    Yea    ME    Snowe, Olympia [R]
    Maryland
    Yea    MD    Cardin, Benjamin [D]
    Yea    MD    Mikulski, Barbara [D]
    Massachusetts
    Yea    MA    Brown, Scott [R]
    Yea    MA    Kerry, John [D]
    Michigan
    Yea    MI    Levin, Carl [D]
    Yea    MI    Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
    Minnesota
    Yea    MN    Franken, Al [D]
    Yea    MN    Klobuchar, Amy [D]
    Mississippi
    Yea    MS    Cochran, Thad [R]
    Yea    MS    Wicker, Roger [R]
    Missouri
    Yea    MO    Blunt, Roy [R]
    Yea    MO    McCaskill, Claire [D]
    Montana
    Yea    MT    Baucus, Max [D]
    Yea    MT    Tester, Jon [D]
    Nebraska
    Yea    NE    Johanns, Mike [R]
    Yea    NE    Nelson, Ben [D]
    Nevada
    Yea    NV    Heller, Dean [R]
    Yea    NV    Reid, Harry [D]
    New Hampshire
    Yea    NH    Ayotte, Kelly [R]
    Yea    NH    Shaheen, Jeanne [D]
    New Jersey
    Yea    NJ    Lautenberg, Frank [D]
    Yea    NJ    Menendez, Robert [D]
    New Mexico
    Yea    NM    Bingaman, Jeff [D]
    Yea    NM    Udall, Tom [D]
    New York
    Yea    NY    Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
    Yea    NY    Schumer, Charles [D]
    North Carolina
    Yea    NC    Burr, Richard [R]
    Yea    NC    Hagan, Kay [D]
    North Dakota
    Yea    ND    Conrad, Kent [D]
    Yea    ND    Hoeven, John [R]
    Ohio
    Yea    OH    Brown, Sherrod [D]
    Yea    OH    Portman, Robert [R]
    Oklahoma
    Nay    OK    Coburn, Thomas [R]
    Yea    OK    Inhofe, James [R]
    Oregon
    Nay    OR    Merkley, Jeff [D]
    Nay    OR    Wyden, Ron [D]
    Pennsylvania
    Yea    PA    Casey, Robert [D]
    Yea    PA    Toomey, Patrick [R]
    Rhode Island
    Yea    RI    Reed, John [D]
    Yea    RI    Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
    South Carolina
    Yea    SC    DeMint, Jim [R]
    Yea    SC    Graham, Lindsey [R]
    South Dakota
    Yea    SD    Johnson, Tim [D]
    Yea    SD    Thune, John [R]
    Tennessee
    Yea    TN    Alexander, Lamar [R]
    Yea    TN    Corker, Bob [R]
    Texas
    Yea    TX    Cornyn, John [R]
    Yea    TX    Hutchison, Kay [R]
    Utah
    Yea    UT    Hatch, Orrin [R]
    Nay    UT    Lee, Mike [R]
    Vermont
    Yea    VT    Leahy, Patrick [D]
    Nay    VT    Sanders, Bernard [i]
    Virginia
    Yea    VA    Warner, Mark [D]
    Yea    VA    Webb, Jim [D]
    Washington
    Yea    WA    Cantwell, Maria [D]
    Yea    WA    Murray, Patty [D]
    West Virginia
    Yea    WV    Manchin, Joe [D]
    Yea    WV    Rockefeller, John [D]
    Wisconsin
    Yea    WI    Johnson, Ron [R]
    Yea    WI    Kohl, Herbert [D]
    Wyoming
    Yea    WY    Barrasso, John [R]
    Yea    WY    Enzi, Michael [R]

    All the Yea votes should face death by hanging!

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But...if that many senators supported the bill, won't they override a veto?

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Uggh.

        This is not good..

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Those damned libertarians! They done did stolded mah liberty!

          ... oh wait, no. That was both the Dems and the Reps.

          Rand Paul and Ron Paul were both on the nay side.

          So which is it, Pcunix? The Libs make good points and their "politics" are at least decent (as opposed to making you sick, as you said earlier on this forum), or freedom is worthless?

          1. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Libertarians are dangerous for civil and human rights.  That's a fact.  Voting correctly once doesn't change that.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "That's a fact."  Really, you have numbers on that?  Are you sure you don't mean "That's an opinion." 

              My opinion of those who use "That's a fact" to describe their opinion is personally and privately held, but suffice it to say they fit perfectly into the old adage about opinions.

              However, Ron Paul would have us stuck in a foreign policy that still perceives two oceans as sufficient protection from foreign hostility.  That hasn't been true since his first term in the House, since 1812.  He must not remember that little transoceanic war - it was in all the papers.  But then again, memory fades.

              1. Pcunix profile image88
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It's a fact as far as I am concerned.  It is a fact as far as most intelligent people are concerned.  If you want to call it an opinion, fine: that doesn't change the reality of how foolish Libertarian ideas are.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So "fact" is malleable.  That is so delightfully liberal.  So when you look in the mirror does it tell you that you are the smartest, most handsome, most special.  It has too, since narcissism is evident in that definition of "fact."  But what would liberalism be with out an unhealthy dose of narcissism.

                  Libertarians might be a little goofy - not to worry.  That little bit of goofiness is enough to preclude them garnering much support.  I am reticent to label them dangerous.  They are mostly just loud.

                  1. Pcunix profile image88
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, indeed.  I am the smartest, the best looking and more.  Aren't you also?

                    OK, fine - you are right - they aren't dangerous because most of us recognize how loony their ideas are.  But they COULD be dangerous if they ever gained traction.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hahahah - there you have it!!

              Even though the libertarians have steadfastly - in the faces of every other politician in DC - fought against this obviously tyrannical bill, PCUNIX STILL THINKS THAT THE "LIBERTARIANS ARE DANGEROUS FOR CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS."!!!

              LOLOL

              The Federal Reserve has blown over $20 trillion bailing out banks,
              Obama didn't do squat for LGBTQs, except let them get murdered in Iraq*;
              Congress is LITERALLY DECLARING WAR ON THE ENTIRE WORLD, and Obama WILL sign it into law;
              Bush made torture a normal US policy;
              They both are bailing out company after company after company with YOUR money....

              ...and yet "Libertarians are dangerous for civil and human rights" despite their constant rallying against these utter nonsensical policies and obviously tyrannical propositions.*

              AAAAAAAAAhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahHAHHAAAAAAAAA

              "the conscience of a liberal", indeed.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                *The LGBTQ is an important one to remember: liberals want the federal government to make a decision. Yet, they fail to remember that, even though the states are making marijuana legal, the federal government is coming in and arresting people. REMEMBER: if you want the federal government to vote one way on a bill, they can EASILY change their minds in 10 years. Libertarians want to keep this power limited.

      2. Reality Bytes profile image89
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is why we need to demand arrests. 

        Oath of Office
        I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


        "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"


        These Senators are domestic enemies!!!!

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Too bad Obama can't put it into effect, arrest all those voting yea under the new law, and cancel his signature.  That would actually be appropriate.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He's going to sign it. You think he's going to go against something with THIS much bipartisan support?

            Give me a break.

            The US is about to declare war on the entire world, and no one is talking about it except on the internet.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oh look at that, I was right:

              http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-573 … -suspects/

              Obama fully supports it.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image89
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I never doubted it at all!

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't expect the government to arrest its own.

  17. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    I have sent out an e-mail to my treasonous Senator that voted yea!  The Hades with him, I want him in shackles!

  18. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I am dumbfounded! I just don't get it: Some of the most liberal memebers of the Senate, along with diehard conservatives, voted for this!! What are we mere citizens missing??

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They are afraid of something.   Occupy?  Muslim Terrorists?

      I'm disgusted.

    2. Reality Bytes profile image89
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True bipartisinship unreported.

      We are missing the clamp down of the prison society that has been so envied over the years.  A worldwide control grid, with an aristocrocy of the elite in charge.


      The Bilderbergers?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        bipartisanship is such crap.

        What if both parties are tyrants? then "bipartisan" just means "single".

        1. Reality Bytes profile image89
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Tyrants?  Both parties are traitors!!  At least the vast majority of them.  The Government works for us!  We control the Government!  Not the other way around.  Unfortunately the government schools of indoctrination teach things as though anything you get is received from a benevolent government.  When in reality they are nothing but thugs ruling through force and coercion!

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Both parties are traitors?!? Brother, you're preaching to the choir!

            Libertarians weren't tricked.

    3. kerryg profile image84
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It may be the one time Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders ever vote the same way on anything. smile Good for them, though. And Lee, Harkin, Merkley, Wyburn, and Coburn.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image89
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is the first time I can say that I am proud to have Bernie Sanders representing the people.  lol

        He is currently on my list of American heros!

  19. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    This is a rare occasion on the political forum here: liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Democratic, and Indie hubbers all united!

    1. Reality Bytes profile image89
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is because we all have one thing in common.  We love our Country!

      We may disagree about alot of things, mostly the division trickles down from Government to begin with but we all want what is best for our Nation and its People!

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree!

  20. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    Was this not "hidden" or tucked away in a funding bill?  If so, did our esteemed representatives even bother to read it?  Could it be they don't even know what they voted for?  I would certainly hope not!

    1. Doc Snow profile image96
      Doc Snowposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, they knew, all right.  There was a full floor vote on a couple of amendments that would have eliminated or reduced the civil liberties threats.  Sen. Udall offered one which would have stripped out that language completely; it went down 61-something.

      A good many of the senators who voted for the final bill did so despite their expressed opposition to the "Battlefield USA" provisions.  Which means that, should this bill be vetoed as promised, there will be some efforts made to amend it.  If we do our bit to build awareness of the way in which this thing undercuts the Constitution, there could be enough pressure on enough legislators that it could be significantly changed in the horse-trading around the veto override.

  21. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    According to this, Obama asked for the part that protected American citizens and legal aliens to be removed:

    Obama’s opposition has nothing to do with the rule of law or protecting Americans, in fact, Senator Levin disclosed and Dave Kopel reported that, “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power.”

    http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/ent … st+Post%29

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That doesn't seem to match with what the ACLU is saying..

      Damn.  This is very confusing.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But, Pcunix! The ACLU is a private institution. They're worthless.

        OBVIOUSLY the president's message is true!

  22. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    OK, here is what the White House actually says:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default … 111117.pdf

    Not that it helps much..

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Read it again, PQ. It sounds like the POTUS wants section 1032 removed. I think that's the part that protects American citizens and legal aliens. I'll go check the bill to see if my memory is correct. (Sometimes it's not! lol)

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If Obama actually signs this, he'll be a greater criminal than Bush and Cheney.

      And that's saying something.

      Here are a few quotes from the link you posted:

      "Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior advisers to recommend a veto."

      "The certification and waiver, required by section 1033 before a detainee may be transferred from Guantánamo Bay to a foreign country, continue to hinder the Executive branch's ability to exercise its military, national security, and foreign relations activities. While these provisions may be intended to be somewhat less restrictive than the analogous provisions in current law, they continue to pose unnecessary obstacles, effectively blocking transfers that would advance our national security interests, and would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles."

      "Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices."

      "The Administration looks forward to reviewing a classified annex and working with the Congress to address any concerns on classified programs as the legislative process moves forward."

  23. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Section 1032:

    "(Sec. 1032) Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest. Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens. Outlines implementation procedures."


    Read the next-to-last sentence. Why does the POTUS want this removed?

    I found this, too, which many sites are carrying:

    "According to Senator Carl Levin, it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power. See the C-Span video of the debate on the floor of the Senate, at 4:43:29. This is not the Obama I caucused for in Feb. 2008."

    http://volokh.com/2011/11/30/defense-bi … -citizens/

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know.  The link explains that it makes things more complicated.  It doesn't address the "inapplicable to U.S. citizens part".  As that's the part that gets us riled up, THEY SHOULD.

      That's what I hate about Dems.  Unlike the GOP, which is always attuned to what the common fool is thinking and forges talking points that meet that thought, the Dems put out things where they assume great familiarity and knowledge.

      I am hardly a dumbass, but I can't make out why the White House objects to this.  It will require significant effort to figure out.

      Democratic Party:  usually on the right side, but socially awkward and lacking communication skills.
      GOP: seldom on the right side, but ALWAYS able to simplify their position.

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I partially agree, but I don't think either Rs OR Ds are necessarily on the right side most of the time. lol

        But I think we can all agree that this bill is a clusterf***!!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The libertarians were steadfastly against this.

  24. barryrutherford profile image32
    barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

    Currently Bradley Manning is being held (wrongly) in my view in solitary confinement for being a whistle-blower!

    1. Reality Bytes profile image89
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bradley Manning also took an Oath of which he has broken.  I support Wikileaks but I cannot condone espionage by our military personnel.  Who knows what kind of danger the information he revealed poses to our men/women placing themselves voluntarily in harms way.

      Mr. Manning will be convicted justly.  He is not a whistle blower, he is a traitor!

      A whistle blower would not have gone to a FOREIGN entity with incriminating information.  He would have followed the chain of command and carried through with the proper operating procedures.

      Wikileaks however is a whistle blower in my opinion.  How they receive their info is not relevant.  They have the right to expose any information which is given to them.  They did not conspire with Mr. Manning to divulge the information.  He committed treason of his own accord and should be willing to suffer the consequences of his actions.  He chose martyrdom, now the piper wants to be paid.

      1. barryrutherford profile image32
        barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        well he might  have sworn an oath but if he sees what is illegal activity what should he have done?
        here is another article
        wo Welsh MEPs have added their names to a growing list of their colleagues concerned about the alleged treatment of Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning.

        The US Army analyst, who grew up in Pembrokeshire, is due in court later this month accused of passing sensitive information to the website.

        He has been in military custody in the US since May 2010, accused of making intelligence available to "the enemy".

        Plaid Cymru's Jill Evans and Labour's Derek Vaughan have signed the letter.

        Ms Evans said US treatment of Pte Manning had become an important human rights issue.
        Continue reading the main story
        “Start Quote

            I think anyone who read about the conditions under which he has been held would be very disturbed... it is totally out of proportion to anything that he has been accused of”

        Jill Evans Plaid Cymru MEP

        During his detainment at a military prison at Quantico, Virginia, it is alleged that the soldier was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and often made to sleep without clothing or bedding.

  25. wyo barney profile image61
    wyo barneyposted 5 years ago

    I admit I have done no research as of yet, but this smells a lot like a permenant extention/expansion of the Patriot Act. I believe most if not all the groundwork to this bill is already laid out in this decade old act.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The new stuff seems to be a lot worse!

  26. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "The Levin/McCain bill would require that all accused Terrorists be held in military detention and not be charged in a civilian court — including those apprehended on U.S. soil — with two caveats: (1) it exempts U.S. citizens and legal residents from this mandate, for whom military detention would still be optional (i.e., in the discretion of the Executive Branch); and (2) it allows the Executive Branch to issue a waiver if it wants to charge an accused Terrorist in the civilian system."

  27. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image90
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    Bullshit.

    The apache gunship clip clearly showed civilians being murdered.  Bradly Manning is a hero.

    1. barryrutherford profile image32
      barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously he leaked information to Wikileaks but if that information showed wrong doing by US personnel who probably tried to cover it up then he should be regarded as a hero.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image89
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He should have brought the information to the FBI or at least he should have went to an AMERICAN media source.  He is being rightly accused.  He commited treason, full blown treason and he will be convicted and punished.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Hey, I know! I found out that the Federal Government just committed a war crime, so I OBVIOUSLY should give the information to the Federal Government! That makes TOTAL sense!!"

          tongue

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "They won't call me a terrorist or an enemy combatant like they did Assange!"

  28. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image90
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    Total agreement - wrong is wrong, and I don't give a damn who did it.

  29. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Bernie Sanders is the only socialist in the US congress.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image89
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He is a socialist.  He also has held to his Oath on this vote and showed Patriotism and Honor.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He was also on "The Peoples" side during the criminal bank bailouts just not too may noticed.People get too hung up on labels,Socialist,progressive,conservative, ect. All we need to focus on is Criminal and Traitor. Bernie has stones and stands up for his voters, unlike so many others.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I have to agree with this.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            i'm confused as to how a socialist can be against a bailout - I think that the fact that an openly avowed socialist is against propping up a vital company with socialized money shows one of two things:

            1) There's an inherent flaw in socialism,

            or

            2) he isn't a socialist.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's what scares me the most - the libertarians and the blatant socialists voted against this bill.

  30. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I find this really scary - not just the bill itself, but also that 93 senators voted for it. What do they know that we don't?

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They know the gravy train is over.

  31. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    REalityBytes, thanks for calling this issue to our attention. I'm unhappy with my Senator, Carl Levin, for his role in the current S.1867 bill. Here's a recent summary of where the issue stands:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1964 … -detainees

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph, I can't take credit for that. Reality Bytes started the thread.

      I'm very upset with my senators, also - both Republicans.

  32. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    I was interested in these two quotes from that Hill article:

    --
    Udall warned that holding citizens in military custody indefinitely “cuts directly against principles we hold dear: innocent until proven guilty.”
    --

    --
    “If [President Obama] were to veto this bill, it would be saying that giving rights to terrorists is more important than passing the defense authorization, which has many other important provisions,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told The Hill.
    --

    I'm of the opinion that rights always matter.  We shouldn't treat our enemies any differently than we treat our citizens: human beings all deserve to be treated fairly and humanely.  That doesn't mean I want to "coddle" terrorists, only that Timothy  McVeigh and any Libyan terrorist should have the same rights.

    I expect I'm in a very tiny minority on that.   That's OK.  I'm right.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      +++ Yes, you are right.

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Ralph.

        May I take this opportunity to say that you are one of the people here for whom I have great admiration.  Your intelligence and humanity are a rare combination.  I suppose HubPages would have been just as wonderful had you never posted here, but I am more than happy that you do.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, the same goes for you. I think we both try to elevate the level of discussion in the Politics Forum.

          1. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, I mostly just get ticked off.   You elevate, I get angry.

          2. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree that you and PQ are pretty likeable...for liberals!! lol lol lol

            Do you guys think Obama will veto the bill? Will a veto be overriden? Will their be a revolution? Why isn't this all over the news?? How much wood would a woodchuck chuck...

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I don't know how Ralph feels,but you have to be my favorite non-liberal.  Actually, I think you ARE liberal where it really matters!

    2. Doc Snow profile image96
      Doc Snowposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, the really essential problem is determining that someone is a "terrorist."  It's any easy charge to hurl; it seems to me that it should require due process prior to indefinite detention.  And no, a 'habeas corpus' review isn't sufficient (though it's better than nothing.)

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Don't worry - defining what a terrorist is will be left to the president, and then -- if someone finds out you've been arrested -- you can then plead to a judge in a military tribune without a jury that you aren't one.

        USA! USA! USA!

  33. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    SO many people speaking out against this bill, but then go back and insult libertarian beliefs.

    Which is it, people? Rights matter, or they don't. Decide now - this time "voting them out" might not be enough.

    93 - 7, that's astonishing.

    I want to point out that both Pauls were against this bill.

  34. Captain Redbeard profile image59
    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago

    Is this no different than the communist hunts back in the day? The government has always been this way, it just seems that now there is a bill that protects them in doing so and has empowered the military to act as police.

    http://peterslarson.com/2011/11/29/infi … nt-rights/

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article … passes.htm

    http://occupychristmas.org/2011/12/mart … ed-states/

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is MUCH different than the communist hunts back in the day:

      This bill declares the entire world a battle field.

      We're literally declaring war on every other country.

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Forgive me, I am not following you. We are declaring war on every other country by arresting Americans on any soil they find themselves on, home or abroad?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The NDAA declares the entire world a battlefield.

          http://www.examiner.com/independent-in- … nstitution

          http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/join-the … t-the-ndaa

          http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2011/11 … indefinite

          And thus we basically claim the right to invade any country we want to hunt what we want.

          PS: here's what you get when you search NDAA into Mainstream Media Sites:

          (to save time, you can just read this: "you get nothing than the sound of crickets")

          http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=NDAA&a … intl=false

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&a … mp;sm=user

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wow......a little mind numbing isnt it? I found an interview with this guy a few weeks ago. It seems he knew what he was talking about 4 and a half years ago when he gave it.

            About 5 minutes in is about "The war on terror"
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oygBg6ET … ture=share

  35. Quilligrapher profile image91
    Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago

    we petition the obama administration to:
    We the People demand that Obama veto the S. 1867 Bill which views all American Citizens as a terroristic threat.
    s. 1867 is a bill that passed the senate which views all Americans as possible terrorists. Any American Citizen, under this bill, can be detained and held indefinitely with out a trial, for something as simple as having a weeks worth of food in their home. This Bill will force American Soldiers to detain the citizens they have sworn to protect. We demand this Bill be Vetoed. This is the United States of America and we demand liberty and justice for all!

    Do it now: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/% … hank-you=p

  36. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    The House of Representatives is curently in discussion on this matter.  We will know if it will make it to Barry's desk soon.

  37. profile image59
    geordmcposted 5 years ago

    It sounds like we are in for a fight. Time to assert our Second amendment right to arm our selves for the coming dictatorship. If you believe in the Declaration of Independence we need to secure new measures to control what our politicians want. The enslavement of the American Citizen. This started with the so called "Patriot Act" and we need to end this NOW!!!

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey there, Geordmc. How are you doing today?

      There are measures already in place to turn back tyranny in all forms. The country can wait until the law is passed and for the Supreme Court to rule. It does not seem like the America is at the point of insurrection just yet.

      Stay cool and stay tuned.

  38. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    A new MTV commercial short and to the point!

    The Holocaust happened to people like us


    http://youtu.be/olCDD-jDfcI

    Another one...

    http://youtu.be/yxdGhjVVanM

  39. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    NDAA Is A Hoax: You Can't Legalize Tyranny


    http://youtu.be/DxSVt1R4Iws

    Please, WAKE UP!!

    1. Druid Dude profile image59
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you were helping to spread the hoax? I'll remember that. It is true about the ammo.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image89
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think you miss the point.  NDAA is very real, it is also unconstitutional.

        IT CANNOT BE LEGALLY ENFORCED!

        If you reside in the United States, disregard the message at your own peril!

  40. maxoxam41 profile image77
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    And next step is to send the army to any protestation! All power will be concentrated to the military/police branch. SCARY. And meanwhile people are blogging about places to go to visit, the barns of Tennessee... What a fucked up America!

 
working