Jan 3, 2012 Political
The United States Congress and Barack Obama have codified what the Nazis did in World War II. They have taken the reprehensible act of rounding up free citizens and locking them away without the benefit of a trial and sanctioned it by passing a law that says it is OK.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for this year took the drastic steps of basically designating the US a battlefield and then allowing people (citizens and non citizens alike) to be taken into custody by the military, detained who knows where and kept as long as the government deems necessary.
Make no mistake, the provisions apply to US citizens the caveat is that the military is not required to take citizens into custody. They have permission to but are not required to. There is no absolutely clear language that forbids US citizens from being apprehended and held without trial and in violation of the rights enumerated in our Constitution. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, introduced an amendment that would clearly forbid US citizens from being affected by this. It was soundly defeated so you know it applies to citizens.
This was passed by Republicans and Democrats alike and signed into law by Barack Obama. History will show that he was the one who signed a bill into law that shredded the Bill of Rights and turned America into the kind of country that led to the atrocities of Nazi German.
This is no right vs left issue. This issue involves all Americans and the attack on us is coming from both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats worked together to do this to us and it matters little that the man who signed it into law is a Democrat. It would have been just as egregious if it had been done by George Bush (though I can’t help but wonder how many Democrats who remain silent would be screaming bloody murder had it been he) or any other Republican. This is an assault waged by the entire government on the citizens of the country.
The issue has hit a hot button among people from all political beliefs. Salon has an excellent article showing how this applies to US citizens and why it is bad. The ACLU is against this law (though I disagree with their position that it is illegal to hold anyone indefinitely regardless of their legal status) and US Representative Justin Amash has written in length about it. Natural News busts the myth about this not applying to citizens and the points made align with those of the other linked articles.
This Republic is in serious trouble and it is getting worse as those in office continue to clamp down on us and our freedom. We will not take this lying down but how many people will have to whisked away before the general population starts to pay attention? How long do we allow the people in office to have their way with us before we do something about it?
This coming November is a huge election and it is up to us to have a peaceful revolution at the ballot box. VOTE OUT EVERY PERSON WHO VOTED FOR THIS.
And that includes the man who signed it into law. Yes, I know he used a signing statement to express his concerns but signing statements are no more valid when he uses them than when Bush or anyone else used them. They do not bind anyone and have no weight should the issue be challenged. A president can do one of three things when presented with a bill. Using a signing statement is not one of the three. They do not bind future presidents and they do not bind the one who made the original statement. Obama could decide he would rather follow the law as written at any time and his signing statement would mean nothing. Like Executive Orders against abortion…
We have a chance to right the ship by getting rid of all these people and the first step is in the peaceful election process. Should that not work and should they start locking up Americans in violation of the Constitution, well it won’t be a good time in American history. Let’s just leave it at that.
Remember, the argument that if you did not do anything wrong you had nothing to worry about did not fly when the Patriot Act was being debated and it should not fly now.
Keep silent at your own peril but remember, First they came…
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 16, 2007 Immigration
Imagine if employers had a sign in their business that read the same as the title of this post. Imagine the uproar that all the ILLEGAL immigrant groups and the other amnesty seekers would cause. The owner would be called a racist, threatened by the feds, have protest marches at his store and he would be drummed out of business but not before he had to attend sensitivity training. I imagine if he said that the word beaner was not meant as an insult to anyone it would make little difference. Given Dennis Kucinich’s opposition to the word ILLEGAL, the employer might get executed.
According to the Washington Times, “A Casa Furniture and Bedding store in Alexandria has been advertising easy credit with a twist: â€œno gringo papersâ€ necessary.” The word gringo is an offensive word used to refer to a foreigner in Latin America [usually American or English]. An assistant manager says the word gringo is not meant to offend anyone.
Yeah, good luck with that. Of course, it will be overlooked and no one will require the sign to be removed. The ACLU will not file a law suit and these folks will continue to insult Americans in their own country.
BTW, the person tried to explaining that people needed no white papers and that is why the word gringo was used. The Spanish word for white is blanco so if they wanted to say white paper blanco would be the word used.