Tag Archives: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Pres. Lucifer has America in a Satanic grip

Rev./Dr. James David Manning, the pastor of ATLAH World Missionary in Harlem, NY city, has been fighting the good fight, speaking truth to power, fearlessly and outspokenly.

But I’ve never seen him as despairing as he is today.

Pres. Lucifer

We The People Have Been Sold Out

By Dr. James David Manning

The cover-up of Obama’s CIA service, terrorist activity ties to Bill Ayers, criminal ties to Tony Resko, hate whitey and America ties to Jeremiah Wright, homosexual activity, connection to the death of Donald Young and his wholly ineligible status has been a combined effort of both democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, the media, the courts and the Congress.

When the DNC took the nomination from the Clinton’s and gave it to Obama, it was empirical evidence that Obama held powers that were larger than the American government.

When Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck finally put the birth certificate question to rest by declaring that O’Reilly had seen the original; they further stated that the Birthers were crazy racists. It was clear Obama and his power brokers controlled all media, both liberal, and conservative. When the stories about Bristol Palin and her boyfriend Levi suddenly disappeared from the news cycles, I knew he had silenced Sarah Palin and The Tea Parties nationwide.

Whatever Obama is, be he Muslim, Communist, Homosexual, Ineligible, or a Brooks Brothers suit wear terrorist, so goes America, it is clear no elected official, no sitting justice, and no media will lay a finger on him. Then why do we think he will ever relinquish power?

He has put the NDAA* in place. He has perfected and gotten approval for the use of drones both nationally and internationally. Homeland security has purchased 1.6 billion hollow point bullets, and he is prepared to hand out 500k assault weapons to black youth from the ghettos and prisons of America in Taliban and Al Queda fashion to defend him and his legacy.

Obama will never release his records, nor will he release America. Our government (Liberals and Conservatives) has conspired a deal that Obama does not have to release his records nor will he have to release America from his Satanic grip.

* NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act that “authorizes” the U.S. president and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge or trial. NDAA was passed by both parties in both houses of Congress in 2011.

Do you agree with Rev. Manning? If you do, what recourse should we take? Do you think Rev. Manning has given up the fight?

See also “Obama’s mentor was a Satan worshipper, what does that make Obama?,” May 28, 2011.

H/t FOTM’s joworth

~Eowyn

Virginia says “No” to anti-Constitution NDAA

The American People are fighting back against that evil piece of legislation, NDAA, which both houses and both parties in Congress passed and which the Fraud in the White House signed into law on the last day (how fitting) of 2011.

NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that, in the name of combating “terrorists,” makes it “lawful” for the U.S. government to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

Thanks to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in designing the new United States of America as a federation of state governments with their own powers and authority separate from those of the central government in Washington, D.C., lawmakers in as many as 10 states are leading a counter-offensive against NDAA. They have or are planning to introduce legislation or resolutions opposing/condemning the detention provisions in section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA which suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.

In the forefront of the battle is the state of Virginia, where Robert “Bob” Marshall, a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates, introduced HB 1160, which would prevent “any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

Assisting in that counter-offensive are two citizen groups: the Tenth Amendment Center and DownsizeDC.org.

Here’s an e-mail from DownsizeDC.org with the good news that both houses of Virginia’s legislature have approved HB1160!

H/t beloved Tina

~Eowyn

Flag of Virginia, adopted in 1861. “Sic Semper Tyrannis”=”Thus Always to Tyrants”

Del. Bob Marshall, of Virginia, called me last night. The reason will excite you. He wanted to thank me for the role DownsizeDC.org played in achieving a major victory.

Mr. Marshall’s bill, HB 1160, has passed BOTH houses of the Virginia legislature, including a 39-to-1 vote in the Senate this past Tuesday. This bill prohibits the state of Virginia from assisting the federal government in the unlawful detention of United States citizens. Remember . . .

The Executive Branch gained this power of “kidnapping” as a result of a confusing provision in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That criminal statue contained tricky language that has fooled many reporters, citizens, and even members of Congress. The measure was deceitfully written to make people think it exempts U.S. citizens when it does NOT! This linguistic deceit was likely intentional. But it’s even more important to defend the principle that citizenship is morally irrelevant, because . . .

The rights that this criminal edict violates are Pre-Constitutional. These rights must be honored for ALL people, NOT just citizens.

DownsizeDC.org has been fighting this bill since before it was enacted. Now, we are helping Delegate Marshall with a vital tactic — non-cooperation by the states!

Delegate Marshall not only thanked me for our support on the phone, he also acknowledged our help in the news release announcing this victory.

If you want to thank Delegate Marshall for HB 1160 you can do so at his Facebook page.

In addition, if you live in Virginia, please call the Governor and tell him to sign HB 1160 into law. The phone number is: 804-786-2211

We are working with other groups, like the Tenth Amendment Center, to achieve similar victories in other states. An even stronger bill is already pending in Tennessee, and we’ll be encouraging you to support it when the time comes. Meanwhile . . .

DownsizeDC.org has influenced this fight in yet another crucial way. We’ve been encouraging people to start using precise language to describe this issue. What the Feds have done is criminal. It is NOT merely unlawful detention; it IS actually the crime of kidnapping. We should call it that. I’m happy to report that other groups AND state legislators are following our lead in this regard.

We’re fighting organized crime, otherwise known as statism. Getting the language right is a big part of our battle. You should be pleased to learn that both the Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org continue to provide strategic leadership in this area.

State and local governments fight NDAA

The biggest fear of America’s Founding Fathers was government tyranny. To that end, our Founders instituted many devices to check and prevent that tyranny, one of which is a federation of states where governing power is dispersed among the national and state authorities, instead of a centralized or unitary polity wherein the central government holds all power.

China and Japan are examples of unitary states wherein geographical political sub-units exercise power only to the extent allotted to them by the central government. Of course, what the center gives can also be withdrawn, at will.

In contrast, in the United States of America, the People are the source of government power to the central or federal government in Washington, D.C., as well as to the governments of the 50 constituent states. The governing power of the 50 states does not come from Washington, D.C.

Thank God for our Founding Fathers’ brilliance and foresight!

Last December, the abominable National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) was approved by both political parties of both houses of Congress, and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama. NDAA makes it lawful for the president and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain imprison U.S. citizens without cause or trial.

Bob Unruh reports for WorldNetDaily, Feb. 8, 2012, that America’s state and local governments “in surging numbers” are fighting back. They are telling Washington they simply won’t cooperate with any plans to detain Americans the federal government may choose to describe as “belligerents.”

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, lawmakers in as many as 10 states have or are planning to introduce legislation or resolutions opposing/condemning the detention provisions in section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA which suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.

In Virginia, Robert “Bob” Marshall, a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates has introduced HB1160, which would prevent “any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

State and local governments that have drafted resolutions include state lawmakers of Rhode Island and Washington, and local officials of Colorado’s Fremont County and El Paso County.

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin commented that “federal politicians never seem to repeal federal law. It’s going to take ‘We the People’ in our states to stand up and say, ‘No!’ to this unconstitutional monster.”

Mike Maharrey, communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, said the fight is shaping up like the conflict in the 1850s when northern states refused to cooperate with fugitive slave laws that required them to capture and return escaping slaves:

“It is clear to me, and I am far from alone in this view, that the detention provisions in the NDAA are vague, overbroad and open to interpretation. That leaves me to trust in the good character and moral clarity of Barack Obama, Rick Santorum or whoever happens to reside at the White House, to protect me and my fellow Americans from abuse of this power. No thanks. [During the latter days of slavery,] state and local governments in northern states stepped in and thwarted the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Acts, which allowed the federal government to arrest and detain black people, and send them back into slavery with little or no due process. We laud these men and women as heroes. I have no doubt that history will prove equally kind to those standing up for the most basic rights of Americans today.”

The center already has developed model legislation that addresses the issue. It states:

“The Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of (STATE), and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution.”

~Eowyn

Montanans are recalling senators who voted for NDAA

Flag of the State of Montana

In an article for PoliticalVelcraft.org, Jan. 19, 2012, Volubrjotr writes that the senators and representatives who voted “Aye” on December 15th, 2011 (ironically, the Bill of Rights Day), for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif) said before the House vote:

“Today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:

”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And in a New York Times op-ed piece, retired four-star U.S. Marine generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar said that “Due process would be a thing of the past.”

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86–14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which according to the American Civil Liberties Union allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans 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.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads: “(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.”

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey’s federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that “the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators,” despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing (“prohibited” in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

“The powers not…prohibited…are reserved to the States…or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The draft of Montana’s recall petition says:

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens: “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, a group of military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens.

Rhodes said:

“These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It’s not about the left or right, it’s about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization.”

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, ten states’ recall laws do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

H/t our beloved Tina.

~Eowyn

A ray of light on that new “Detain US Citizens” NDAA law

On December 31, 2011, while still on vacation in balmy Hawaii, Obama signed into law a bill — approved by both houses in Congress — which now makes it legal for the military to detain — indefinitely — any and all U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The bill the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). I’ve warned you about this bill under its previous guise as Senate Bill 1867. Read here, here, and especially here.

When I posted the news of Obama’s signing of NDAA, I made this observation:

“On the last day of 2011, with a flick of his pen, Obama shredded our 224-year-old Constitution with its Bill of Rights that protect and preserve our individual liberties.”

Here’s a calmer perspective on the new law.

~Eowyn

EDITORIAL: Obama and dictatorship

The Washington Times – Jan. 3, 2012

Can a mundane defense authorization law create an Obama dictatorship? Many people on the political right and left have been alarmed by language in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that they argue authorizes the president to use military force to capture, detain, torture and kill Americans at home and abroad. The furor centers on Sections 1021 and 1022 of the law, which deal with detaining terrorist suspects. Specifically at issue is to what extent the law allows the government to treat American citizens like enemies of the state.

This dust-up is thick with irony, given that the Obama White House has gone out of its way to extend full constitutional protections to terrorists who have never set foot on U.S. soil. At the same time, President Obama has claimed the right to target Americans with deadly force overseas, though his legal team refuses to explain the basis for this extraordinary and unconstitutional power. The NDAA itself states that nothing in it changes existing law, but because Americans are not allowed to know what powers the president already has, such guarantees ring hollow.

All dramatics aside, no matter what the murky NDAA says or means, it cannot strip Americans of their constitutional rights. Chief Justice John Marshall laid out this logical principle in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the standard of judicial review. He wrote that if a law conflicts with a rule or right under the Constitution, “the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, [therefore] the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” This is a bedrock principle of American politics. Even if the most expansive reading of the defense authorization is correct and it does represent some kind of White House power grab, it doesn’t matter, because any such provision negating rights held by citizens would be struck down as unconstitutional once it was adjudicated.

There also is the matter of the law’s political context. Those who argue that the NDAA is some kind of enabling act for an impending Obama imperium must also explain how such a bill was passed by a divided Congress, particularly the conservative Republican-controlled House. If control was Mr. Obama’s objective, it would have been more sensible to craft the legislation during the two years when San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House, Democrats enjoyed a supermajority in the Senate and Mr. Obama was not so unpopular. He could have used those purported extraordinary powers to head off the “shellacking” he took during the 2010 midterm elections, assuming he thought he could get away with it.

The true test of the NDAA would be if Mr. Obama attempted to do what some people fear he might do, namely, begin a vendetta against his political opponents or others he wants to deal with “Chicago style.” But should we honestly believe Mr. Obama will soon order mass arrests and detentions of peaceful American citizens? That members of the military would carry out such orders, which go against all other laws and customs and the Constitution? That such actions would not be met with a flood of court cases, mass demonstrations, civil disobedience and active resistance? And all this would happen in an election year? It will take more than a scrap of paper to end freedom in America.

Obama Signs US Citizens Detention Bill

On the last day of 2011, with a flick of his pen, Obama shredded our 224-year-old Constitution with its Bill of Rights that protect and preserve our individual liberties.

On December 31, 2011, while still on vacation in balmy Hawaii, Obama signed into law a bill — approved by both houses in Congress — which now makes it legal for the military to detain — indefinitely — any and all U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The bill has the innocuous bureaucratic name of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). I’ve warned you about this bill under its previous guise as Senate Bill 1867. Read here, here, and especially here.

Do you think I exaggerate? Then read what Obama himself said in his signing statement issued by the White House (h/t PrisonPlanet):

————-

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed….

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists….

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary….

I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law….

In other words, Obama is telling us: “I now have the perfectly legal authority and power to detain American citizens, but trust me, I won’t!”

Yeah right….

This piece of sh*t is talking with forked tongue.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) who is the sponsor of SB 1867, has revealed it was the Obama administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill which would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial. (h/t PrisonPlanet)

For that matter, more than two years ago, on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama had proposed a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.

Of the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, only Ron Paul recognizes the lethality of NDAA. He correctly states that the new law means the imposition of martial law on the United States.

Here’s a good video on NDAA:

H/t our beloved May and Tina.

~Eowyn

U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees met last Monday to “reconcile” the two respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 which the House (HR 1540) and the Senate (S 1867) had passed.

It appears they’ve removed U.S. citizens from S. 1867 Section 1031′s arrest and detention without charge or trial. But then, it doesn’t.

Donna Cassata of the AP reports, Dec. 13, 2011:

WASHINGTON -  Congress is pressing ahead with a massive $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., with lawmakers hoping their last-minute revisions will mollify President Barack Obama and eliminate a veto threat.

Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees announced late Monday that they had reached agreement on the policy-setting legislation that had gotten caught up in an escalating fight on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals in the civilian justice system. [...]

The lawmakers said they hoped the House and Senate could vote on the final bill by Thursday and send it to the president.

The issue of how to handle captured terrorist suspects has divided Obama’s senior national security officials and Congress, as well as Democrats and Republicans.

The administration insists that military, law enforcement and intelligence officials need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror. Obama points to his administration’s successes in eliminating Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

The bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States, with an exemption for U.S. citizens.

Several paragraphs after that, however, there’s this paragraph:

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.

I’m thoroughly confused. I will need to find and read the final “reconciled” version of the NDAA, but the bill is not yet available on the Library of Congress’ Thomas website.

At this point, it looks to me that this “reconciled” version has retained S. 1867′s Sections 1031 and 1032. The “exemption for U.S. citizens” pertains to Sec. 1032; the indefinite detention and denial of the right to trial to “even U.S. citizens” pertains to S.1867′s Sec. 1031 — the same Sec. 1031 that we find so problematic and threatening.

Nothing’s changed.

So much for conservatives putting our hopes in Congressman Allen West, who’s a member of the “conference committee” that produced this reconciled version of the NDAA. If you need more confirmation that Allen West is an enemy of freedom, listen to Glenn Beck’s radio interview of West on the NDAA yesterday. Go here. I heard it live and was ready to spit nails.

Allen West also voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011, the passage of which immediately increased our national debt ceiling by $2+ trillion.

I will do everything I can to see that Allen West does not get re-elected.

~Eowyn

There Really Are FEMA Camps

If you’re like me, you probably roll your eyes whenever you hear or read some conspiracy theorist going on about the federal government setting up FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency ) camps across the United States.

But I don’t do that any more.

I only just found out a few days ago that more than two years ago (!) on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, ironically flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama declared the need for “a legal basis” to be created for the preventive detention, without trial, of Americans who might commit crimes in the future.

Don’t believe me? Just hear and see for yourself, beginning around the 1:30 mark:

Two weeks ago, on December 1, 2011, the U.S. Senate obligingly provided that very “legal basis” when, by an overwhelming majority bipartisan vote of 93:7, our elected representatives passed a bill that gives the President of the United States the authority to have the military arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

The bill is S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. Section 1031 of S. 1867 says:

“Congress affirms that the authority of the President [...] includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons [...] any person [...] who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks [...] who was a part of 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 disposition of a person under the law of war [...] may include [...] Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities [...]“

Note that nowhere in Section 1031 are U.S. citizens excluded from the category of “covered persons.” In fact, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) — like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mark Udall (D-Colo)– had tried to get an amendment into S. 1867 that would “limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031″, but her proposal was rejected by the Senate 45Y – 55N.

Now that a “legal basis” for the detention without trial of American citizens has been created, the next question is:

Where will they put all those people?

This is where KBR, a top US federal contractor, comes in.

KBR, Inc., formerly called Kellogg Brown & Root, is an engineering, construction and private military contracting company, and the largest non-union construction company in the United States. Formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, KBR is headquartered in Houston. KBR and its predecessors have won many contracts with the U.S. military, including during World War II, Vietnam War and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Recently, a 4-page KBR document has surfaced (leaked?) online, which provides the first solid piece of evidence that there really are FEMA camps. The document carries the bland title of “Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements.” [To read the document in pdf, click here.]

So what’s the project?

This is how KBR describes the project:

“KBR is establishing a National Quick Response Team for our current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) work, and for anticipated future contracts. Upon completion of evaluation, certain subcontractors may be invited to establish a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with pre-established lease rates and terms and conditions.”

The KBR document is a solicitation for bids from subcontractors to provide services and supplies for FEMA camps, including:

  • Catering Services
  • Temporary Fencing and Barricades
  • Hand Washing Stations
  • Laundry Services
  • Medical Services
  • Office Trailers / Administration Area
  • Potable Water
  • Power Generation, Fuel Delivery / Supply & Electrical Distribution
  • Refuse Collection
  • Shower and Toilet Units
  • Tentage, Flooring, Electrical & HVAC/ECU
  • Waste Water Removal

The document says “services will be required in each State within each of the five regions of the continental United States.” Each camp is estimated to “range in size from 301 to 2,000 persons for up to 30 days in length.”

Here’s a screen-shot of the map of the five regions from the pdf KBR document:

FEMA camps in 5 U.S. regions

One thing I learnt when I was professionally active in military-strategic matters is that it’s capabilities that matter, not intentions.

That is, when it comes to a potential enemy of the United States, e.g., China, any increase in the quality and quantity of its military hardware and capabilities should be of concern to us, no matter the rhetoric of its government. For today, the regime may have no hostile intent towards us, but that can all change with the wind. When its intent turns malicious, our opponent’s enhanced military capabilities can be used against us.

That is why America’s defense policy must always heed other countries’ capabilities, instead of their intentions.

The same principle applies at home, in our relations with government.

The KBR document lodges its solicitation for subcontractors to provide “services” to FEMA camps in the context of “emergency responses” – whatever that means:

“Establish services listed below within 72 hours for initial set-up and respond within 24 hours for incremental services. This is a CONTINGENCY PROJECT and it should be stressed that lead times will be short with critical requirements due to the nature of emergency responses. Subcontractors must be flexible and able to handle multiple, shifting priorities in an emergency environment. Supply lines needed must be short but not necessarily pre-positioned.”

But once the FEMA camps are in place, as the KBR document describes, “in each State within each of the five regions of the continental United States,” who’s to say the deployment of those same FEMA camps will only be confined to “emergency responses”?

Now we know what Obama meant by those “shovel-ready” projects….

H/t Joseph, Tina, & Steve.

~Eowyn

Obama Proposed “Preventive” Indefinite Detention of Americans

We are living in a waking nightmare.

On December 1, 2011, by a bipartisan 93:7 vote, the Senate passed a bill that, in Sec. 1301, gives the President of the United States the authority to have the military arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

The bill is S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.

Obama has said he means to veto the final version of NDAA, produced by the House and Senate reconciling their respective versions of the bill. (The House version is HR1540.)

Don’t be fooled by Obama’s veto. He’s not doing it because he disagrees with S. 1867′s Sec. 1301. He’s not doing it because he cares about the Constitution and our civil liberties. (To find out why he’ll veto the bill, go to my post here.)

The truth is that Obama completely agrees with S. 1867′s Sec. 1301 — and more.

The truth is the Senate, in approving S1867, was merely doing his bidding.

More than two years ago, on May 21, 2009, in a speech at the National Archives, flanked by copies of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, Obama outlined a new policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.

He said that more than two years ago! Did you hear/read/know about it? No? Join the crowd. I consider myself well-informed, with my ear to the ground. But I only found out about Obama’s “preventive detention” speech early this morning when I got an email tip about the Maddow video below, which has no date or year. So I went on the web to look for when Obama had made that speech.

Here’s MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (yes, liberal Rachel Maddow! — which goes to show this issue transcends political parties) telling us what Obama is proposing — the “preventive” and indefinite detention/incarceration of Americans. “Preventive detention” means detaining people for crimes they haven’t yet but may commit in the future.

H/t beloved fellow Tina.

What can we do about this?

A committee, called a “conference,” of House and Senate members is being assembled, whose job is to “reconcile” the two versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 1540 and S 1867).

The House is our hope, because HR 1540 does not contain a section like S 1867′s Sec. 1301. We already know Congressman Allen West (R-Florida) has been appointed to that conference. Tell your Congressman/woman you strenuously, vehemently object to the arrest and detention of U.S. citizens without due process — without charge or trial!!!!

Your very life depends on it.

UPDATE:

No cigar. Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, and US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”

See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”

~Eowyn

Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867

UPDATES: 

On December 31, 2011, Obama signed this effective martial-law bill into law.

Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “”U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”

See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”

+++

Some among us are puzzled as to why Obama has made known he plans to veto the recently passed Senate bill 1867, that will give him (and future Presidents) immense power.

The now infamous Section 1031 of S. 1867 does not exclude U.S. citizens from those “covered persons” whom the President can have the military arrest and detain without charge or trial. In effect, S. 1867 suspends and  removes the protection of the U.S. Constitution from American citizens if they/we are deemed to be “at war” with the United States, whatever “at war” means.

Obama’s opposition to S. 1867 is not due to his passion to preserve our civil liberties.

Matt Apuzzo of the AP reports that on Dec. 1, 2011, “top national security lawyers” in the Obama administration said exactly what S. 1867′s Sec. 1031 says — that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.”

The Obama administration’s CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure who died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen. The two lawyers did not directly address the al-Awlaki case, but they did say U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. Echoing S. 1867′s Sec. 1031, Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

So why is Obama opposed to S. 1867?

It is not for reasons of protecting U.S. citizens, but because Obama opposes S. 1867′s “military detention” of those “covered persons.” Military detention means those “covered persons” become prisoners of war (POWs), and POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention, which forbids the torture of POWs.

In other words, Obama wants to continue to be able to use torture on “covered persons” — a category that, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein says in her e-mail, includes U.S. citizens.

As former Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts explains:

“The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.[...]

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing "extraordinary renditions" to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)”

Update (12.11.2011):

More than 2 years ago, Obama had proposed the creation of “a legal basis” for the preventive and indefinite detention of American citizens. Go here.

~Eowyn