Martial Law in America: NDAA Signed Into Law
Tomorrow, I leave to volunteer at the Iowa Caucuses for Ron Paul, the only GOP candidate who has spoken out against the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
As I type this, I’m hearing my neighbors fire their automatic handguns into the air to celebrate the New Year. In the past, this has bothered me a lot. It happens every 4th of July and New Year’s Eve.
Now I’m kind of glad that so many of my neighbors are armed, even though they’re criminals.
Because I’m pretty sure that Barack Hussein Obama made me a criminal tonight as well, along with his accomplices, the traitors in the House and Senate who drafted and voted for this un-American monstrosity.
My two-week supply of food, my hand-crank radio, my gun and the Ron Paul sticker on my car are probably the only things required to label me as a “dangerous radical.”
This is what it has come to in America.
I never thought I’d live to see the day.
© 2012, Kathleen4HB. All rights reserved.
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
What did Ron Paul do to expose the Usurper's Constitutional ineligibility?
I don’t know. Maybe Google does. I don’t have time to look it up right now (and I suspect that no matter what the answer is, you’re still not going to vote for Ron Paul anyway.)
Ron Paul did say that Obama’s drone murders of Americans without due process are an impeachable offense:
Why is Ron Paul the Only One Asking For Impeachment Investigations !?
I can answer your question. He did precisely nothing. In fact when he was asked about raising the matter in the house he ran a mile away from the the thought of confrontation. In other words he quite literally refused to deal with the subject asking a question along the lines of "are you out of your mind?"
I've run into several comments that Michelle Bachmann voted for this bill. Does anyone know if this is true?
She probably did not vote since she was in Iowa. But if she was there, Im sure she voted for it. She is for the police state as much as Obama is.
She did not and would not. She voted against both Bush and Obama bialo outs. She a fearless advocate for the people. I am amshamed this site is so negative on Michele Bachmann. It seems that no good deed goes unpunished. Both Bachmann and Paul were absent for this vote. Niether one of them would give Obama this kind of power, but they are both in a servious campaign period and the bill would have passed even without thier decent.
Did you listen to the debates? Bachmann loosely interprets the Constitution when it comes to matters of National Security. I wa supporting her up until the Commander-In-Chief debate where she shred her Constitutional credentials. I one sentence she said she supported the Constitution and then went on to explain how she woudl subvert it! It was amazing. Sorry, I liked her too, but it happened.
The only candidate that had it right was Ron Paul on this issue. Cain was neutral. I was very disappointed in Bachmann, and even more so in Santorum who gleefully talked about assassinations in that debate as did Gingrich (gleefully being the operative word).
Happy New Year Kathleen, KD, & HB in general. It is my understanding that, supposedly, the final version of this bill does not actually extend indefinite detentions any further than is already technically legal under other laws already passed. It, from my reading, does NOT extend to U.S. citizens taken into custody on U.S. soil, even if they are somehow classified as "terrorist".
The section in question is, I believe, Sec 1021 of the final bill approved by Congress & signed by the President (other versions had the section number different). Here is the link to the text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:7:./te…
If the link dies (I think the site only keeps them for a temporary time period) then you can search for [H.R.1540.ENR] or try the PDF link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/p…
Anyway, section 1021 specifically states the "covered persons" to be those who were involved in 9/11, or "substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
The section further states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
These and other provisions in this section do, in my opinion, prevent such actions against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. I would also like to state that I believe such authority, had it been granted, would have been in clear and undeniable opposition to the 6th Amendment and would have subsequently been struck down the first time it was challenged.
Like cate007, I noticed one of the few representatives I consider trustworthy had voted in favor of this bill, so I had to go look it up for myself. Though I am still not entirely comfortable. It does concern me that a U.S. citizen captured on foreign soil may be held indefinitely. It does concern me that the bill uses the term "a belligerent act .. in aid of such enemy forces", since the word "belligerent" is largely a matter of opinion/interpretation.
However, I am no longer concerned that the government could arrest and detain any U.S. citizen, or even any legal, non-citizen resident, indefinitely, or try them in military court instead of civilian. I just do not see that in this bill. But if your reading of the text is different then by all means I'd love to hear your take on it.
Mr. James, did you read Section 1022? Read what one Congressional Representative warns:
http://www.redstate.com/justinamash/2011/12/17/th…
Also listen to Rand Paul's warnings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWApGqE_T-k
I have had so many people tell me that there is no reason for concern over cameras on every street corner and gun registration if you are not breaking the law. They assume the government will never abuse its power.
Do not assume this or any future government will not interpret this legislation to control the people.
By my reading, section 1022 reaffirms that U.S. citizens and all peoples in/on U.S. soil are not subject to the action of indefinite detention.
In the Red State post you mentioned, the author is clearly concerned with section 1021, but that section specifically states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
So like I said, it is concerning that the U.S. would grant itself power to indefinitely hold U.S. citizens captured in foreign nations, but the treatment of those on U.S. soil does not appear to be impacted by this law at all.
I certainly don't discount that this law is the kind of slippery slope, sloppy legislation that should never be passed, but I do believe it's reach has been somewhat misrepresented by the inference that it would extend to U.S. soil.
Thank You Robert for your tedious clarifications. Misinterpretaions of bills is a huge tool of opposers who would influence the less informed. Imagine how many Americans the original post can mislead and influence votes for and against candidates ? I believe that intentionally misleading voters on misinformation or misinterpretation should be considered as UNAMERICAN !
this is the provisio for the likes of Adam Gadahan who is a known Al Qaeda operative that goes under the name of al-Amerki.
I assume that it was not the intention of the Congress to include U.S. citizens who have been arrested in the USA, but that it would include people such as the late Samir Kahn and Anwar al-Awlaki who were born in the USA but considered themselves as belonging to the Ummah.
I doubt that your neighbors have "automatic" handguns. Semi-automatic perhaps. This kind of careless/reckless/misinformed mislabelling of firearms is an "oops" I would have expected of the liberal media and not here.
Probably depends on whether the firearms are legal or illegal…
The other candidates have not spoken out vs. this. Why? I have to assume they support it. Ron Paul 2012. I don't agree with him on everything. He is the one I agree with on most things. There is no perfect candidate. Paul is the closest.
I hope that everyone here at Hillbuzz makes it thier mission in 2012 to expose the UN's Agenda 21 and it's evil intent. It is a NAZI revival and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is one sick bastard. This NAZI revival is beginning to be exposed and a Philadelphia county (Montgomery County) has regected ICLEI agreemants. People are waking up to these One World Soros sickos who include Bill and Melinda Gates, Al Gore, Warren Buffet, The Rockafeller foundation the Carnegie Foundation and every other Godless institution. I support Rick Santorum now more than ever. He was right to defend Terry Shivo, I only regret that I didn't see it then.
If Americans continue to lose thier civil rights because of the actios of American born Muslims, then the people most demand Islam outlawed in America. This polygamist cult disguised as a religion has no place in the civilized world.
http://trifter.com/usa-canada/lindsey-graham-shou…
Lindsey Graham should lose his law license for treason, not to mention his job in 2014.