At this point, the best defense...

Every day open hostilities haven't broken out is a good one. Network and prepare to survive the first mass culling of "troublemakers" as a snitch ffl dealer/cop once muttered about me.

Of course, if you're pushed against the wall, or past your "honey badger limit" or you find yourself getting raided, then open hostilities have started-for you. Them's the breaks.

Couriers would be the most secure,but slow.Under 80 miles digital laser coms are reliable and can not be jammed.Some combination would be best.

My point really was one of what we were going to do as a group.

And I noted the Hutaree and Sgt Dyer as examples because the question is a rhetorical one.

I already know what to expect.
I think we all do.

There will be no collective response.
We are all on our own.
In fact, the responses indicate exactly that.

The only way that anyone can expect any support is if their own small unit of family and close friends becomes involved.

Not surprised.
Not at all.
What I expected.
What I expect.
No problems with that on my end, however unfortunate it is for the cause.

Imagine if there are thousands of small, tightly knit, family based teams and neighborhoods scattered across the CONUS. Imagine that all these teams will have some "friendly" connections with other such groups in their area (force multiplication).

THAT is a collective response. One that will be much harder to infiltrate and or take down.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2012,allows for the "UNLAWFUL" detention of American civilians by the U.S. military without trial or due process.This one act of congress undoes the "Bill of Rights"on the 220 year anniversary of it's signing.To the day!We stand on the precipice staring into the Abyss,waiting for what is in it too devour us!I say we stop staring ,like deer in the headlights of an oncoming runaway train.And become "LIONS" and devour that which threatens to destroy us!

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

So, what has become of this? At first, you could not get away from it, now you can hardly find anything new about it.

Is this the calm before the storm?

Leo out

I want to apologize to you guys. I fell into the lie, and tried to make it a swimming pool.
I think we have been had again!
I began reading the new Armed Forces Appropriations Act, and looking for all of these "threats to our freedoms" poised by the act. I have thus far come up dry of any new powers. This means that there is something else hidden in the ACT that my looking for specifics has missed. I start again today taking the act down to the amendments it actually changes to find what I missed.
Could all of this Corporate Media allowed Hype be a part of a larger unseen problem?
Every thing in the bill that they are screaming about is already available to the President under Presidential Proclamation and Executive Orders of past presidents.
I will let you know what I find in a few days (947 pages to read).
Remember that in every bill they call it an egg then when the snake hatches we get the shell.

The Bill of Rights cannot be repealed by any legislation, nor can Articles 1 through 10 be amended.

Our individual rights must be exercised, and in so doing, We the People act as law enforcement.

I am not negating the significance of the 2012 NDAA, so much as reminding us that the individual powers vested in the BoR supercede all legislation which runs counter to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is my personal responsibility to ensure that my individual rights remain intact.

The only way that anyone can expect any support is if their own small unit of family and close friends becomes involved.

That is the premise I have always operated under.

The fact is they only have the power we allow them to have, the problem is we have sat back and let them have it all.

Obama Regime Warns All Americans: IF YOU FIGHT US YOU WILL DIE!
by TheTotalCollapse.com on December 3, 2011
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/obama-regime-warns-all-americans-if-you-fight-us-you-will-die

I am a big fan of leaderless resistance at the outset.

Unfortunately, it seems we have carried that to the extreme of impotence.

If all acted in a concerted manner, ie roughly simultaneously, then yes it would be very effective. Don't see that happening.

And I do expect that my initial post on the subject pretty well sums up their plans for us, culminating at some point in a replay of the communists in Hue during Tet.

See, that's the part that pisses me off. He "Obama" thinks that is going to scare us. It may scare the wanna be patriot. But for those of us who truly believe in resisting Tyranny at whatever cost.

The threats only solidify our courage to make a stand against the Tyranny. Talk is cheap and time will tell. Probably sooner rather than later with the escalating times we live in.

Remember this, men of faith arent scared of anything, except their Heavenly Father. That is a reverent fear. However, we can boldly enter his inner sanctum. Cowards we are not!

If we cannot be first in peace, then let us be first in War! They always seem to forget. They bleed too!

Leo out

Have any of you folks found a pdf copy of the signed bill? I have searched for two days. I find quotes, references, reports on but no signed bill.
On the White House bill where they post all Executive Orders, Proclamations, and Memorandum there is a section for legislation. They have no reference to this bill either Pending, Signed, or Vetoed.
The Health care bill was up in 24 hours, but not this one.
This makes a smell I can't find the fire for.
If you see one that goes to a copy of the signed law please post it here.

Not really "leaderless".

Should be highly organized and dispersed. Everyone in agreement on core principles. Keep it local, county level.

Cellular network structure, lead by a safety committee. Real (not make believe), underground support network including E&E, safehouses etc.

Things are to quiet on this topic. The information I mean. Something is not right. They didn't come this far to abandon it.

Assume they are keeping a lid on it?!

Leo out

CBS news discussed this late last night.

They claim it's on Obumers desk as yet unsigned.

They interviewed an attorney who said the gov. had the right to do most anything it wanted to an enemy combatant.

But, she claimed the bill doesn't define that term nor who will make any ultimate decisions.

If the bill declares America a Battlefield,then the entire country is under the Jurisdiction of the U.S.Army Provost Marshall.If no board or committee is named as the discussion making body as to who is and who isn't a terrorist/combatant/belligerent.Left unclear it would be up to the M.P.'s to determine ones status.This means your stopped at a checkpoint an enlisted man asks you a question and you give some lip.He flags you for secondary check(off the road to the right) an N.C.O. declares you a terrorist/combatant/belligerent then off to detention you go.After initial processing it's a bus ride to the FEMA camp where DHS/FEMA/Govn contractors decide your statues.

I agree Walfred, and when they run our names through their data base most of us here will show up on FEMA's Priority Arrest Red List and we will never be seen or heard from again. They would likely execute us at the FEMA camp after they tire of torturing us.

Due to boards like these being monitored.If all of our speculation as to who and who isn't going to be detained are false.
To end all of the could be's, why hasn't someone fron the goverement come out and firmly say don't worry.
Since this hasn't happened. I'm lead to believe this is there true intent.
To label loyal patriotic americans enemies of the state, is nothing more then pure tryanny.

Absolutely.

On all counts.

The last several posts seem to focus on the idea of checkpoints. Well, checkpoints might be one of the things they do that would be the easiest to deal with and should be, post haste.

Just MO though, speaking hypothetically.

The JBTs have been using checkpoints for a long time though. When I was stationed in South Carolina back in my USMC days (late 70s) they were a regular occurrence. They would just block off the main thoroughfares and check everyone out.

These days, they would start them on a larger scale where they would be most accepted by a passive population. Generally, this means finding sheeple in which to instill a sense of fear.

With time, of course, they become a regular occurrence, even in places where there is no threat of there ever being a terrorist act.

Patrol
Ambush
Snipe
Evade

For freedom

The issue then comes up on how you define "true patriots" because you know how the multimillion dollar PR campaign would go:

Lots of good music, some old video footage of the Iraq war, then a good looking group of "veterans" comes on, first showing them in military uniform, then in police uniform with the announcer in a serious tone

"We know who the true patriots are, as they continue to serve our great country in our communities, they stand ready to fight crime and terrorism at home as they did abroad. If you see something, say something...."

"Protect yourself and your community against the growing threats of crime and terrorism, and exercise your rights to keep and bear arms. With those rights come responsibilities, see your local law enforcement agency for details, and if you know of an illegal firearm, don't hesitate to do the right thing and call 1 800 ATF GUNS...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1540:

And we need to have our own propaganda campaign.

Show the infringement of our freedoms, the beating of those arrested or detained, the murders of innocents by police because just one of them got an itchy trigger finger.

Show the checkpoints.

Show the loss of freedom over the past decades and the militarization of LE.


Second one,

Show the Redcoats and what happened to them on their long march back to Boston after Concord and Lexington.


Now obviously, they have the upper hand in the propaganda war with regards to their control of the MSM.

Can't give up on that though.

Besides, they can't all hide in their studios and buildings 24/7.


Seems to me you're losing your nerve, Breacher.
No offense. I read your post in which you stated you should have finished law school and put the Militias of the 90s on the back burner.

I certainly see the utility of that.
In some respects I wish I had considered that instead of medicine though the latter is a more noble profession IMO. At least it used to be, probably not so much anymore.

IMO though, the organized "militias" are an f'ing joke. I wouldn't waste 2 minutes on any of them. All infitlrated and seemingly led by inept douchebages with the testicular fortitude God granted a squirrel.

That doesn't mean no one is ready, willing or able to fight if it comes down to it. I could be out the door in short order. I haven't been training and preparing all of my life to cower under my bed when the time comes.

Showing the of the abuse of power by the cops,you tube videos everywhere.
Showing the abuse by the system, also you tube and documentories are out there.
1-800 see something say something all ready in place.
Check points grow by the week.
Police state here depends on what level your in depends on what area you live in.
National guard already being deployed in louisiana to help with gang activivity. Wonder what state is next?
Okalohoma now wants to ban individual militias. Again what state is next?
In a facist police state,those who say they are free. Are as free as the lease they are aloud to have. Pull on that lease to hard and those in power will hang you with your own lease.

Top Legal Expert: “President Obama … Says That He Can Kill [Any American Citizen Without Any Charge and] On His Own Discretion. He Can Jail You Indefinitely On His Own Discretion”

Posted on December 21, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...indefinit ely-on-his-own-discretion.html

Government Says It Can Assassinate or Indefinitely Detain Americans on American Soil Without Any Due Process of Law

I’ve previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.

This admittedly sounds over-the-top. But one of the nation’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – agrees.

Turley:

Is the second most cited law professor in the country

Has worked as both the CBS and NBC legal analyst during national controversies

Ranks 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by a well-known judge

Is one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases

Has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues

Is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues

Turley said yesterday on C-Span (starting at 15:50):

President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion

***

I don’t think the the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn’t relax …

The Government Has Never Given a Rationale for Assassination

While one might assume that the government has given a valid justification for the claim that it can assassinate anyone anywhere, the Washington Post noted yesterday:

In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws.

***

“They’ve based it on the personal legitimacy of [President] Obama — the ‘trust me’ concept,” [American University law professor Kenneth Anderson] said. “That’s not a viable concept for a president going forward.”

***

Under domestic law, the administration considers [assassinations] to be covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress passed days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In two key sentences that have no expiration date, the AUMF gives the president sole power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against nations, groups or persons who committed or aided the attacks, and to prevent future attacks. [But the government just broadened the authorization for use of military force from those who attacked us on 9/11 to include the Taliban and the vague category of "associated forces".]

***

The authorization did not address targets’ nationality or set geographical boundaries, and there was “nothing about the permission of the government” of any country where a terrorist might be found, the former official said.

And see this.
Almost Any American Could Be Arbitrarily Labeled a “Terrorist”

As I’ve previously noted, this is especially concerning when almost any American could be labeled a “terrorist” if the government doesn’t happen to like them:

It is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. [And the FBI says that activists who investigate factory farms can be prosecuted as terrorists.] And see this.

And it is problematic in a period in which FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”, and even former Secretary of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – admitst hat he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.

And it is counter-productive in an age when the government – instead of doing the things which could actually make us safer – are doing things which increasethe risk of terrorism.

And it is insane in a time of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this.

And when the “War on Terror” in the Middle East and North Africa which is being used to justify the attack on Americans was planned long before 9/11.

And when Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser told the Senate in 2007 that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”. And 9/11 was entirely foreseeable, but wasn’t stopped. Indeed, no one in Washington even wants to hear how 9/11 happened, even though that is necessary to stop future terrorist attacks. And the military has bombed a bunch of oil-rich countries when it could have instead taken out Bin Laden years ago.

***

And – given that U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants – it is unlikely that the government would ever admit that an American citizen it assassinated was an innocent civilian who has nothing at all to do with terrorism.

Rep. Landry Offers Amendment to NDAA to Protect Civil Liberties


Joe Wolverton II
The New American
Saturday, December 24, 2011

The National Defense Authorization Act will be made law with the stroke of President Obama’s pen (perhaps autopen from Hawaii?). With the enactment of the NDAA, Americans suspected by the President of having committed a “belligerent act” may be apprehended by the military and detained without recitation of charges and without access to an attorney until such time as the President decides that the “War on Terror” is over.

Majorities in both chambers of Congress voted in favor of granting the President this autocratic authority. In the Senate, only 13 members of that body stood up to defend the constitutionally protected civil liberties of Americans. In the House of Representatives, 283 of the people’s representatives violated their oath of office and voted to pass this legislation.

One of those who was true to his vow to protect the Constituiton from all enemies, foreign and domestic, has now offered an amendment to the NDAA that would “clarify the language” of the measure so as to make it explicit that no American citizen could be detained under the provisions of that act without being provided the full panoply of due process protections.

Freshman Representative Jeff Landry (R-La., above) introduced HR 3676, which would add the following qualification to the portion of the bill — Section 1021 — that provides for indefinite detention of Americans:

United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

A story from The Hill reported, “[H]e [Representative Landry] has a commitment from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) to revisit the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to ensure that language related to detainees does not give the U.S. government new rights to hold U.S. citizens without due process.”

“We have assurances that they would work to clarify the language,” Landry told The Hill. “I have a commitment from the chairman that the type of language I have is the type of language he would use to clarify that.”

As has been reported by The New American, A key component of the NDAA mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses in that section unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

It is this immeasurable cession of power to the executive that Representative Landry and others fear. Landry reports that prior to passage of the NDAA, he conferred with proponents to make sure that habeas corpus and due process would be left intact in the new bill. He was assured that such privations would not be permitted according to the applicable sections of the act. Despite these promises, Landry submitted his amendment in order to close securely any loopholes in the law that may yet exist that could be wrested by the President (Obama and his successors) and used to unlawfully and unconstitutionally arrest and imprison American citizens in violation of the due process requirements set out in the Constitution.

Landry was quoted in The Hill saying, “The problem we’ve had is that Congress over the last 30 years has just not done a good job of basically telling the administration through legislation what the confines of its power are. All we’re trying to do is say look, this is what Congress is trying to intend.”

In a statement released by his office, Representative Landry explained the impetus behind his proposed alterations:

The Founding Fathers granted Congress specific duties; and as a representative of the people, it is my duty to pass laws that protect the Constitutional rights of all American citizens. Toward this end, any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a President to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming and should be cautiously scrutinized.

This effort on the part of Congressman Landry is noble and he should be lauded for his commitment to the Constitution and its core civil liberties by which the God-given freedom of all Americans is protected from the frequent attempts at alienation made by the federal government.

Unfortunately, the language does not go far enough and the only solution at this point is for a courageous block of constitutional congressmen to recall the words of their oath of office and absolutely repeal the entire act as soon as President Obama signs it into law.

Furthermore, as all constitutionalists are aware, no half-measures, even well-intentioned ones, will ever serve to restrain a federal authority determined to protect its empire on the Potomac by having the congressional oligarchy hand a crown to a monarchical president.

As Alexander Hamilton warned in The Federalist Papers, such legislative attempts to reduce the scope of federal influence as a matter of course contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why do we declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Now that Congress has agreed on a payroll tax compromise, Washington, D.C. will soon be a ghost town and consideration of the Landry Amendment will likely be put on ice until Congress returns to the Capitol in January.

Landry said that he hopes to present the bill to the House Armed Services Committee as soon as possible. On his website he provides a link to a colloquy (a formal, on-the-record discussion) with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) during which Landry was told that the matter would be given a fair hearing and the freedom would be preserved.

Ostensibly the debate in committee on Landry’s bill would shine the bright light of inquiry onto the parts of the underlying legislation that deprive Americans of their most basic of civil liberties. Furthermore, such deliberations might serve to ultimately restrict any malingering mandate of despotic power to the President.

As of the time of publication of this article, Congressman Landry is joined by 30 co-sponsors of his bill including representatives of both political parties.

Maybe its time to go bowling with the heads of some of the traitors. That may encourage the others to do the right thing. Other wise order up another pitcher of beer and start a fresh game.

This may sound harsh for some, but time for talking is over. You either do the right thing [operate within the Constitution] or suffer the consequences.

We are either going to save this Republic or tear it a new Asshole trying!

Tire of fucking around with these Tyrants commie assholes.

Sorry for the blue language. Speaking softly hasn't worked. Time to use the big stick.

Leo out

Agreed. Not sure where the "front lines" are but there is no question that's where we're at. Have been for awhile IMO.

What we need now is an action to provoke the fasco-socialists to act against us with force, as was done after the Boston Tea Party.

It would take a severe blow to their revenue stream to set them off in such a regard.

We need them to fire the first shot(s), however.

IMHO

Since they hold all the cards, there is no reason for them to do so unless provoked. Given the arrogance as well as the ignorance of Obama, Holder and Napolitano, it likely wouldn't take much.

They will inlist the services of another mental case, Arm him, and send him off, FALSE FLAG EVENT, He will claim to be part of some Militia,some guy, maybe a disgruntled former member that was 86ed for being rogue or mental. Some senario like that possibly, Or just attack a group and invent the reason to get it rolling, either way it IS comming. We know for a fact they make stuff up all the time, The wheels on the bus just keep rolling along as far as the masses are concerned. Be ready when it comes and make it count! SEMPER FI

You think they will open the False Flag Playbook and pull the old, tried and true "Timothy McVeigh?"

I will give the tyrants some credit for their creativity, and at least assume that they will somehow implicate Iran in the next FF attack.

IMO, the auspices for door to door roundups will come under the umbrella of a martial law declaration.

Keep your eyes and ears open!

Check-out what some in the Montana State Legislature intend to do:


Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention.

From the press release:

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

...

The Obasterd in chief signed the Bill,Its official.

I knew the Obomination in DC would sign it. I'll bet the socialist/communists traitors will be celebrating it tonight while they sodomize their butt buddies and commit acts of bestiality that the bill legalizes.

They have always said that the FEMA Priority Red List Arrests will start over a holiday weekend too.

Good,Just finished my SKS project this morning,ROCK AND ROLE and SEMPER FI

It is a scientific fact that hungover thugs respond slower and bleed-out faster.

Ron Paul Calls National Defense Authorization Act "Slip Into Tyranny"

Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Friday, 30 December 2011

“A dictator enjoys unrestrained power over the people. The legislative and judicial branches voluntarily cede this power or it’s taken by force. Most of the time, it’s given up easily, out of fear in time of war and civil disturbances, and with support from the people, although the dictator will also accumulate more power with the use of force.” Those prescient words of Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) are taken from his book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. The tyrannical assumption of power by the President and the cession of unheralded power to him by the Congress has taken place precisely as Dr. Paul warned.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”

What of the NDAA? Are there indeed provisions contained therein that so ferociously tear at the constitutional fabric of our Republic?

In a word — yes.

This liberty-extinguishing legislation converts America into a war zone and turns Americans into potential suspected terrorists, complete with the full roster of rights typically afforded to terrorists — none.

A key component of this reconciled bill mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

In his assessment of the danger inherent in such acts, Paul is in good company. This suspension of habeas corpus, a right central to Anglo-American freedom from despotism for over 500 years, was described by Alexander Hamilton as one of “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”

Congressman Paul eloquently expressed his assessment of such an assault on liberty:

The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.

As reported by The Hill, in a phone message to supporters, Paul cited the Founders and their intent to bequeath to their descendants a government fettered in such a way as to threaten as little as possible man’s innate freedom:

The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.

Adding insult to injury, Congress has stuffed the bill full of funding for illegal and unconstitutional foreign wars so that the American people will pay over $670 billion dollars for the privilege of being deprived of their God-given rights and for the building of the American empire.

This appalling story doesn’t end there, however. The NDAA’s rap sheet of crimes against the Constitution is long. As Congressman Paul explained:

The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal counsel. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.

While all the foregoing is harrowing and enough to make any reasonable man fear for the future of this Republic, there is another aspect of the law that is perhaps more frightening still. That is the vagueness of the terms. Terms so ill-defined are ripe for the wresting and within the penumbras of these provisions could be found lurking the tools of tyranny. Wrenches that could force anyone into a predetermined “terrorist” hole.

Ron Paul sets forth the source of such chilling concern as contained in the NDAA:

It is no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces. How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?

Despite the bipartisan and bicameral support for the defense budget bill, President Obama originally vowed to veto the measure over his disagreement with the delegation of power over the cases of detainees.

He has since withdrawn his objection and has signaled his intent to sign the bill into law.

The crux of the White House’s opposition to the NDAA was President Obama’s desire that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should have plenary power over the disposition of issues related to the custody and prosecution of all terror suspects detained domestically.

The Obama administration insisted that cutting out the FBI would reduce the overall effectiveness of investigations, as well as hamstring the efforts of intelligence officers from gathering reliable intelligence from those believed to be fighting against the United States in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Specifically, the White House promised to veto the legislation if it “challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, [or] protect the nation.”

Such swords disguised as shields are reminiscent of the words of James Madison. The Father of the Constitution warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”

Again, Ron Paul finds himself in the company of the Founders. In his closing remarks, Congressman Paul cited very succinctly the indictment that should be handed down by the American people against the NDAA:

The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.

Beware, indeed.

Act of War is what this is.

They just keep building the fences around us and one day all they have to do is close the gate.

There has been concern, especially coming out of Michigan, that local Islamic militants had compromised the FBI offices there. You can look it up elsewhere on the net, but people in the military now think that the FBI overall may in fact be compromised with regard to Islamic militants operating training facilities and planning their own operations here in the US.

So this is being put in place to legally legitimize some of what has been going on already anyway, but on our end of it and the military end of it, a lot of this is a wait and see approach.

It is one thing to speculate on who is targeted by who and why, entirely another when the hammers drop and the bullshit stops.

There is absolutely nothing new under the sun when it comes to secret arrests, detentions, executions or assassinations, but what is currently going on is the wrangling and positioning between the various arms of the government that feel they have a game to play.

Our end of of it, in my opinion, needs to be the same as it always was on any other possible scenario. Prepare, wait, see, and respond appropriately if action is taken against us or those we care about.

The government of Iran has declared war on us a long time ago,

same with North Korea, several other militant and dictators, some aspiring racial demagogues, a few members of the Russian Duma, some Red Chinese communist die-hards, I think FARC, Hugo Chavez, maybe the Zapatistas...the list goes on.

Oh, and some Zetas apparently specified some of the border militias in their declaration of war against the US while they seemed to have been getting along quite well with their weapons suppliers in the BATF...

While I don't normally approve of Infowars except as a link to the truth this link does a bang up job of breaking it down to who, when, where, and how.

http://www.infowars.com/myth-busted...ericans-and-heres-the-text-that-says-so/