Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Signs NDAA into Law. Last Pen Stroke of 2011.
Examiner ^ | December 31, 2011 | Jean Morrill

Posted on 12/31/2011 10:52:10 PM PST by Wiz-Nerd

According to the ACLU, President Barack Obama just signed one of the most controversial bills into law since the Patriot Act. The sad part is that neither the House nor the Senate nor Obama seemed to think it was all that controversial, as it passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate, and the president just signed it (even though he had at one time threatened to veto).

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: fascism; marxism; ndaa; obama; rapeofliberty; socialism; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last
To: Rapscallion
I dream of the day I may see Obama on the witness stand defending himself from a treason charge.

No need.

As I understand the special provisions of the 2012 NDAA, the next President can now simply lock Obama up, indefinitely, without trial.

Irony can be so sweet.

51 posted on 01/01/2012 9:03:58 AM PST by RetroSexual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RetroSexual
Now thar’s some sweet unintended consequences!

The radical Islamic terrorists destroyed the twin towers in an attack on our financial system, knowing if they brought it down it could, in their eyes, bring down the USA.

That was terrorism, no one would argue with that. Well except some assorted leftists, Obama and his unrepentant terrorist buddy, Billy Ayers.

Obama even fits the profile of a terrorist even more that his name sake, Obama bin Laden.

He is systematically chopping away at out financial system (as well as the tree of liberty) by his manipulation of money and his unbridled spending and borrowing.

In 2008, while running for president, he vilified GW Bush for raising the debt ceiling. It was a horrible thing to do back then, he opposed it.

He also complained about Bush raising the deficit 4b dollars in 8 yrs.

Well guess what, he has raised it that much in just 3 years!

Still people are still mesmerized by him and he has bought a huge voter base.

52 posted on 01/01/2012 9:54:33 AM PST by Syncro (Sarah Palin, the unofficial Tea Party candidate for president--Virtual Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: spaced

Well it passed by a huge majority through Congress, including Congressmen and Congresswomen whom Freepers by and large respect as true conservative defenders of US liberty. Are they all traitors too, or maybe this bill doesnt actually give the govt more power to detain citizens than they have already had.


53 posted on 01/01/2012 10:07:38 AM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pride in the USA

Got lead?


54 posted on 01/01/2012 10:23:55 AM PST by lonevoice (Klepto Baracka Marxo, impeach we much. We will much about that be committed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wiz-Nerd
I would've thought Rand Paul would've made a big stink about this.

I and I really would've thought his dad would've made an even bigger stink of it on the campaign trail. I wonder how the Pauls voted.

Ron Paul may have missed a golden opportunity to firmly establish himself as the nominee. Instead of going around bashing America, why didn't he use this legislation as a campaign theme?

Or did he and Big Media chose to ignore it?

55 posted on 01/01/2012 10:28:06 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

COME AND GET IT
HUSSEIN JUNIOR



56 posted on 01/01/2012 10:50:03 AM PST by devolve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

http://youtu.be/dc4BcG2OzkI
Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law

http://youtu.be/z8bbuMQLlqs
Paul says the NDAA is the biggest story nobody is talking about. He calls the act really bad, very dangerous, and says that it repeals the 5th amendment.

Ron Paul gets asked about the NDAA at a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on December 19, 2011.

It is just not getting real media coverage...

This is it. This was the final piece to set in motion absolute tyranny.


57 posted on 01/01/2012 10:55:29 AM PST by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: conservativesister

Not intentionally.


58 posted on 01/01/2012 11:47:29 AM PST by madmaximus (Anyone But Robamney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All; Wiz-Nerd

While Bachmann didn’t vote at all last time, nor did Ron Paul, because they were busy campaigning:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932&sort=vote

I can’t understand why Bachmann, who voted against it in the past voted FOR it in May, and so did Duncan Hunter, who did 3 tours in the M.E., including Fallujah.

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/375

Does anybody know WHY they voted for it, particularly Bachmann?


59 posted on 01/01/2012 10:24:30 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetroSexual
As I understand the special provisions of the 2012 NDAA, the next President can now simply lock Obama up, indefinitely, without trial.

Splendid idea. No warrant. No hearing. No habeas corpus. No trial. Simple. Clean. And a perfect test of the provision's constitutionality!

60 posted on 01/02/2012 7:33:32 AM PST by Rapscallion (Do not even call him "president"...."Mister" will be more accurate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: EBH

But that is actually some good and positive news-since NDAA 2012 doesnt give Congress new authority in regards to US citizens and states the laws regarding the Army and detaining US citizens is that same as it always was and previous laws, including this one, take precedence.


61 posted on 01/02/2012 1:15:28 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: emax

NDAA - “Well it passed by a huge majority through Congress, including Congressmen and Congresswomen whom Freepers by and large respect as true conservative defenders of US liberty. Are they all traitors too, or maybe this bill doesnt actually give the govt more power to detain citizens than they have already had.”

Lemme see... Obama said, when he signed it: “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” The history of this administration shows a high likelihood that this is pony shit and it’s obvious what the pony is.

Do I believe that the Congress is composted of traitors? Not wholy. Some are fools and some probably got snookered.


62 posted on 01/02/2012 2:14:56 PM PST by spaced
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: emax

NDAA - “Well it passed by a huge majority through Congress, including Congressmen and Congresswomen whom Freepers by and large respect as true conservative defenders of US liberty. Are they all traitors too, or maybe this bill doesnt actually give the govt more power to detain citizens than they have already had.”

Lemme see... Obama said, when he signed it: “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” The history of this administration shows a high likelihood that this is pony shit and it’s obvious what the pony is.

Do I believe that the Congress is composted of traitors? Not wholy. Some are fools and some probably got snookered.


63 posted on 01/02/2012 2:15:08 PM PST by spaced
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: spaced

But I beleive that many Congress members, including genuinely Conservative Congress members, drafted and supported the bill and it wasnt because Obama tricked them or forced them into doing it and it wasnt because they suddenly decided that they think the Constitution shouldnt be taken seriously and followed. Of course it has provisions that can be severely misused and there are numerous things not to like, but some sort of balance is needed before declaring it a conspiracy or black helicopter plot or something.


64 posted on 01/02/2012 2:21:54 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: spaced

And as for Obama’s statement, well let’s just say that there probably was a reason for him to make a statement that direct and unambiguous when he could have said something convoluted and empty with no meaning. And there was also a reason why the bill was presented to him December 15 and he waited until the 31st to sign it.


65 posted on 01/02/2012 2:32:16 PM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: emax

“And as for Obama’s statement, well let’s just say that there probably was a reason for him to make a statement that direct and unambiguous when he could have said something convoluted and empty with no meaning”

What about this selection of quotes?

Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.

We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil.
Obama’s oval office speech in June 2010

“Contrary to the claims of some of my critics and some of the editorial pages, I am an ardent believer in the free market.“

Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”
Obama: “I will not.”
Jan 20, 2006, “Meet the Press”

“the most transparent administration ever”
Multiple sources

That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay...
Address to Joint Session of Congress, Feb. 24, 2009

And in honor of our new military presence in Uganda:
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
The New Yorker, May 31, 2004


66 posted on 01/03/2012 7:37:07 AM PST by spaced
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: spaced

Fair enough, but these statements are not the same as signing statements, which presidents do have some form of commitment to, since all presidents in addresses have said less than truthful things. Plus, some of those statements are just examples of ignorance or delusion rather than out and out lying, as in “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” - in that statement, it is left up to him what defines a “dumb war” so it is not as definitive as this singing statement


67 posted on 01/03/2012 8:39:48 AM PST by emax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson