Saturday, March 16, 2013

» Is martial law the ultimate goal? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» Is martial law the ultimate goal? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Is martial law the ultimate goal?

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Daniel Detwiler
February 1, 2013
With everything happening to this country of ours it is getting harder and harder to maintain a cool head and not jump to conclusions but if we sit back and view the last four years as well as what’s happening now an image is starting to appear of what might possibly be our future.
During President Obama’s first term he laid the ground work. President Obama issued over 144 executive orders, many dealing with martial law. As the Supreme Court already opinioned when looking at President Lincolns use of martial law, “Martial law … destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.”. This means when martial law is declared we as Americans have no rights at all.
During President Obama’s first term he wrote Executive Orders granting the government the power to take over all communications media, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. He also wrote an Executive Order where the government can take over all modes of transportation and control of the highways and sea ports. That means Obama can confiscate your horse, your donkeys, your bicycle or even your riding lawn mower. All forms of transportation. Executive orders signed by Obama also include railroads, inland water ways, public storage facilities, airports and airplanes including commercial planes can all be taken over by the government.
Think that’s bad, well it gets worse, much worse.
Executive Orders have also been signed allowing the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. To take over all health education and welfare functions. To allow the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations, AND grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
If that doesn’t scare you then look at this. An Executive order has also been signed which allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Now why that last part that congress cannot review the action for six months? To understand why President Obama wanted that executive order lets look at what martial law is. Martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The president is the commander in chief of the military and as such in full control of the martial law. Seeing how the constitution is suspended during martial law and the President is in control the only ones able to stop martial law is the congress. In effect that Executive order that says Congress cannot review the action for six months in effect give the President full unchallenged control for six months.
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
A little tidbit to add to martial law here is that our constitution Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The concept of the of Habeas Corpus is that a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ means the government would have to provide a person to a court to show just reason for holding them. With the suspension of the writ the government can detain and hold a person indefinitely.
In a nut shell a President can declare martial law, would have six months of free reign to do as he pleases while rounding up any congressional opposition to his martial law and detaining them indefinitely and doing this totally legally.
In order for a president to declare martial law he must have a valid reason to do so. For that lets look at our present situation. Today we have a president whom has openly declared war on the second amendment to our constitution. This is causing a great deal of civil unrest in the nation. Being told that their actions are unconstitutional doesn’t slow the President down at all, in fact it emboldens him to push even harder. To top that off our President is also pushing us to the fiscal cliff of ruin. When asked about the out of control spending our President replies that we do not have a spending problem. Top that off with our government printing money as fast as possible as well as demanding unrestricted borrowing powers we can see we will be heading to a financial meltdown very soon. A financial meltdown coupled with civil unrest over constitutional violations would be the catalyst for open revolt and exactly what would be needed in order to openly declare martial law. Then we all are doomed.
This article was posted: Friday, February 1, 2013 at 11:49 am

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Bill Whittle on Gun Control

Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen! - YouTube Bill Whittle on Gun Control ~ What we're really trying to control is violence, murder and insanity ....

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"(Network - 1976) - YouTube

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"(Network - 1976) - YouTube

Political Diary: What Does Buffett Really Think of Obama? -

Political Diary: What Does Buffett Really Think of Obama? -

What Does Buffett Really Think of Obama?

Warren Buffett is President Obama's most important ally in the business community. A signature Obama proposal to raise taxes, the Buffett Rule, even bears the name of the billionaire investor. And the president has frequently appealed to the authority of Mr. Buffett to defend his own policies. But statements this week from Mr. Buffett suggest that he's not entirely sold on those Obama policies.

Related Video

Assistant editorial page editor James Freeman on Warren Buffett's op-ed in the New York Times supporting raising rates on individuals earning more than $500,000. Photos: Associated Press
In a New York Times op-ed published Sunday, Mr. Buffett opposed tax increases on those making less than $500,000. This undercutting of the Obama agenda occurs just as Mr. Obama is negotiating a tax deal and trying to force Republicans to accept rate hikes beginning on households making $250,000.
Then Mr. Buffett appeared Monday in a TV interview with Charlie Rose and sang the praises of J.P. Morgan Chase JPM +1.67% CEO Jamie Dimon as a potential Treasury Secretary. Mr. Dimon has been conspicuous among bank CEOs for criticizing the president's economic policies, and in particular financial regulations flowing from the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.
But Mr. Buffett called Mr. Dimon "terrific" and told Mr. Rose, "If we did run into problems in markets, I think he'd actually be the best person you could have in the job."
Warren Buffett may be Mr. Obama's top cheerleader in the business community, but he appears to disagree with tax and regulatory policies at the center of the Obama agenda. Does this make Mr. Buffett hypocritical? No more so than does his advocacy of the Buffett Rule, given how little of his own fortune he exposes to taxation.

The following is...

The following is...

The following is the BEST summation yet...and written by Mychal Massie on 3/2/13, a black talk show host in Los Angeles and also a respected writer. A must read and please share!

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obamas? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America . They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America . I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel . His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood... Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America 's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Virginia Tech shooting victim speaks at UB - Connecticut Post

Virginia Tech shooting victim speaks at UB - Connecticut Post

Virginia Tech shooting victim speaks at UB

Updated 6:43 am, Tuesday, November 13, 2012
  • Colin Goddard, survivor of the April 16, 2007 shooting the killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University, discusses the documentary, Living for 32, at the University of Bridgeport on Monday, November 12, 2012. Goddard was shot four times in the incident. Photo: Brian A. Pounds / Connecticut Post
    Colin Goddard, survivor of the April 16, 2007 shooting the killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University, discusses the documentary, Living for 32, at the University of Bridgeport on Monday, November 12, 2012. Goddard was shot four times in the incident. Photo: Brian A. Pounds | Buy This Photo
BRIDGEPORT -- The day he was shot four times in a French class at Virginia Tech was a game changer for Colin Goddard. That's when he went from college student to gun control advocate. On Monday, Goddard took that message to the University of Bridgeport, where dozens of hands in the audience shot up when he asked how many knew someone who had been shot. Many knew Moin Hassan, the graduate student gunned down at a Fairfield Avenue market in September. Reginee Reese, sitting in the back of the student center, took out her hand to start listing all the gun violence victims she knew: a boyfriend, an uncle and, most recently, a 15-year-old cousin, Keijahnae Robinson, killed while sitting on her front porch. "I want to know how do you get your voice heard so people listen to you," asked Reese, 18. Goddard, on a campaign to better regulate the sale of guns, told Reese he decided to stand up and not to be defined by that April 16, 2007, shooting that left 32 dead and 17, himself included, injured. Instead, he decided to focus on change. The audience saw a screening of "Living for 32," a documentary film about the shooting, and also heard from Ethan Rodriguez-Torrent, a Yale University senior who survived the Aurora Colo., theater massacre in July. This was Rodriguez-Torrent's first time talking to a large crowd about the event. He called it therapy. "I think there are a lot of people across the country who really don't understand the daily violence that goes on in places like Bridgeport or New Haven or Chicago or D.C. They just literally don't get it," Rodriguez-Torrent said. So far in Bridgeport this year, there have been 21 homicides. "There is no returning to how it was," said Goddard of his experience and his campaign. "I have to find a way to turn that negative experience toward something positive." Goddard said his main focus is getting a bill passed in Congress that would make it more difficult to sell guns to dangerous people. He wants all states held to the same standard. The killer in the Virginia Tech shooting, who had a history of mental health issues, had two semiautomatic handguns, dozens of 10- and 15-round magazines, and 400 rounds of hollow-point ammunition. After he recovered from his wounds, Goddard went to work for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, going undercover to gun shows, where he was able to buy guns with little or no identification or background checks. Lisa E. Nelson, a city resident, asked if change will really happen. "How do you feel about where we are nationally," Nelson asked. "I'm hopeful," said Goddard. "I think we are ripe for change." He said he knows it is an uphill battle. Goddard rejects the argument some have made that if other students had been armed that day at Norris Hall, they could have defended themselves and fewer would have died. "We can't have shootouts on campuses. That would be ridiculous," Goddard said. Once he takes care of the supply side -- what he considers the easy part -- Goddard plans to focus on the issue of demand for guns, making people less likely to want guns to solve problems. "That is the harder part," he said. John Marshall Lee told the audience one thing they can do is report things they see. There is a way they can do so anonymously. "You'll feel stronger if you do," he said. Reese, meanwhile, wants to stage a "100-mom march" through the streets of Bridgeport. A representative of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, in the back of the room, gave Reese her card before she left.