incredible! can't believe this has happened...wake up America, this is no nightmare
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop … itarianism
I don't see anything about this coming from the MSM, therefore most people don't know anything about this. Just mention terrorism and the people that aren't paying attention are like "Good,Good, Good, My government is protecting me" At this point ,I don't feel our president or our reps are steering this ship anyway.
We should have reacted earlier. The first infringement to our freedom was a sign. Either we protest and fight, either they continue. We did nothing, they are keeping their goals: the destitution of our rights.
These two links are to bolster the "Who's steering the ship" comment
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/26 … elections/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/26 … n-the-u-s/
If you search CNN, you can't even find an article discussing Obama signing it.
That's one of the scariest parts of this whole thing to me - hardly anything about it on any major news outlet.
A strange metal ball dropped out of the sky and slammed into the remote grassland of northern Namibia recently, according to press reports.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45770560/ns … nce-space/
Gee, I dunno, Ron. Seems like this should be more important that the FLOTUS' new dress, and the MSM covered that. Or perhaps you're more fashion-conscious than I am. lol
LOL We also got to go Christmas shopping with the POTUS, watched him eat his pizza and all. Oh what a vast supply of hungry journalists we currently possess.
Keep watching the news. You'll have reason to unclench your sphincters and move on to the next monster under your bed.
If Obama had been a Republican, would you be showing the same lack of concern?
I'm genuinely curious, so I would be grateful for an actual answer to this question, not a brush-off.
Dem/Rep either way. Either/Or. Either way, the ending is the same.
The answer would probably be more than we could handle. It is a scary thing. The ideal answer to the problem would have been to stand up to it much earlier.
I am unsure of many things about this bill. One, is it a done deal or is it just finding its way thru the channels? Secondly, is this just another election year scheme to hurt the other party? Many questions on this subject.
If in fact it is a done deal, we are going to be seeing the change that was so loudly spouted last election season. I am afraid we aint gonna like it.
We are however, a strong people. We CAN overcome it or at least make it through it.
Life will no doubt be different. And like an earlier post showed, we may as well find a way to laugh about it cause crying is too late.
If my understanding of the bill is correct, we are to have no more than a 7 day supply of food in our home, we can't talk among our friends about our likes or dislikes of the government, we can be detained indefinitely without trial until the war on terrorism is over, and that is just the start of it.
I hope my understanding of this is totally wrong. I really do.
When I ask people if they have heard about it, they look at me like, ok, if I smile, she will go away.
If this is real, we NEED to be talking. Doing. ETC.
I don't know much about this NDAA bill but from what I can gather, two of the controversial bits are sections 1031 & 1032, which are on pages 359 - 364 of this humungously long pdf:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s … 867pcs.pdf
I'm not great at reading legal jargon but it seems to be talking about which groups of people should be put in military (as opposed to civilian) custody if arrested for terrorist activities. It excludes US citizens, but there is also a waiver.
Of course, a lot of this hinges on what you mean by "war" and "hostilities". Handily for your (and my) government, the "war on terror" is an open-ended thing, which can go on indefinitely and can mean anything the government wants it to mean.
Don't know anything about the being arrested for having seven days' food supply or talking about the government - can anyone find a link?
This flies in the face of the Constitution as it takes away the right to a trial, to even have charges filed, allows for one to be held indefinitely so on and so forth. At the same time, many are saying that speaking out is a form of such. When one considers the fact that it says "for suspicion" not for having been proven that sheds a whole new light on all of this. I heard someone say recently this won't stand if it goes against the Constitution. Perhaps they are right and perhaps not. Do we really want to leave the right to a trial for American citizens in the hands of anyone? These rights were to be undisputed hence why they were put in place at our nation’s inception. Further, according to what I have seen and read it allows for "enhanced interrogation methods", i.e. torture. Reality Bytes gives us a link to a case of a 16 year old child detained. Are we really at a point where we think all of this is appropriate and needed to stop children?!? This child has been locked up for 2 months. Do they really think we will buy that it takes that long to investigate the actions of a teenager? This must be repealed. Now! The potential for abuse here is too high. Protecting our nation should be priority one. The question now becomes who we need protection from!
Not at all. If Obama was a Republican I would be very concerned.
So if a Republican president tinkers about with your freedoms, it's not OK. But if a Democrat president does the same thing, you post Chicken Little cartoons whenever anyone raises their concerns.
OK, ta. At least I know where you're coming from (well, I'd already worked it out long ago, but hey).
16 year old American Boy Indefinitely Detained
WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE!
Now why is it that we don't hear anything about the controversial part of the NDAA from the nattering nabobs of negativism. They sure squawked loudly when Bush signed the Patriot Act, or do they agree with this because Obama signed on to it.
If you're against these NDAA type pieces of legislation, then Ron Paul is your man.
by Nathan Bernardo 6 years ago
Immediately after a court decision that ruled the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA unconstitutional, Obama (White House) appealed the decision. What do you think of that? There are a lot of problems in the country, should keeping the NDAA intact be such a priority for the White House? Why...
by Quilligrapher 7 years ago
Congress and the President still intend to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional right to a trial by jury."National Defense Authorization Act: House And Senate Negotiators Agree On Bill Hoping To Avoid Obama Veto The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens...
by Lions Den Media 7 years ago
Obama has used the Espionage Act, passed under Woodrow Wilson to shut down media opposition WWI, 6 times in 3 years, whilst it had been used 3 times since 1917, to target or shut down journalists that Obama targeted. In Syria journalists were killed and Obama praised their tough journalistic style,...
by JosieLee 7 years ago
What are your thoughts about the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)?Should it have not been signed? Is it taking away our freedom as Americans?
by OLYHOOCH 7 years ago
Introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates is House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a...
by Spirit Of Romance 9 years ago
Does anybody know ANYTHING about this doll company?It's called Victoria Impex Corporation.Does anybody know their website, a site I can buy some from, the rest of the series?~ The Spirit Of Romance.
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|