OBAMA’S PHONY PULLOUT
By RALPH PETERS, NY Post
YESTERDAY, President Obama went to Camp Lejeune. He spoke in front of US Marines, but his real audience was his left-wing campaign supporters.
And his carefully worded speech - its parsing of language worthy of Bill Clinton - may go down in history as his “Mission Accomplished” moment. We’ll see who leaves Iraq when.
During last year’s presidential campaign, it was evident that Obama wouldn’t keep his promises to his leftist base to pull our troops out rapidly.
While he benefited greatly from the troop surge he opposed - which handed him a convalescent Iraq - he’s learning that reality trumps rhetoric.
Forcefully delivered, his speech to the Marines served up more waffles than the International House of Pancakes.
Consider his big sound bite: “Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” What does that mean?
Will the 50,000 troops he intends to leave in Iraq, the trainers and maintainers, be forbidden to defend themselves? Are they just going to hang out? If terrorists or the Iranians skunk us, are we just going to ask for more?
The enemy gets a say, too. The situation on the ground will determine when combat operations end. Obama’s just going to call them something else.
In the immortal phrasing of Ol’ Bill, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
As for Obama’s claim that “I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months,” just watch.
We’re not going to leave 50,000 support troops in Iraq without combat units to protect them. We’ll just ban the word “brigade” and call our shooters “task forces.”
The reality all along has been that Obama can’t cut and run.
He began campaigning for a second term on Inauguration Day and he’s not going to let himself be blamed for “losing” Iraq.
Meanwhile, he’s praying that progress continues in Baghdad.
As for yesterday’s boilerplate nonsense that “The end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East,” hey, if it does, thank George W. Bush. History has a wicked sense of humor.
Of course, the rhetoric’s necessary. Obama had to lecture the Marines to placate the angry extremists who put him in office.
The fundamental purpose of the speech was to hide the 50,000 residual troops in plain sight: “It’s OK, see? They’re not combat troops.” Obama’s scared as a naked sheriff at a moonshiners’ convention.
He piggybacked on the left’s hatred of “Bush’s war” in Iraq, but had to show his tough-on-security bones during the campaign.
A strategic novice, he declared Afghanistan the good war. Now it’s his. And while Iraq looks increasingly like a success story, Afghanistan’s going south. Iraq’s the prize, Afghanistan’s the booby prize.
Success in Afghanistan’s a one-off, while even a half-baked democracy in Iraq changes the Middle East. And Pakistan’s the monster under the White House bed. In artilleryman’s parlance, Obama’s speech to the Marines was all flash, no bang.
He’s struggling to appear decisive while carving out maximum wiggle room. And in the modern tradition of Democratic presidents, he just wishes these foreign conflicts would go away. But they won’t.
Welcome to reality, Mr. President.
Ralph Peters’ latest book is “Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World.”
Is America heading for civil war?
Are some American States preparing the groundwork for succession if the Federal Government goes too far in abridging States rights and individual freedoms of citizens? Obama is consolidating as much power as he can, if taken to the extreme he could spark a rebellion by many states and succession from the Union by some if not many. By law if 33 states succeed the Fedral government ceases to exist of function and the Union is dissolved.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Montana Introduces Resolution Asserting State Sovereignty - And Threatening Secession
A Montana Resolution asserting state sovereignty has been introduced, today, February 17, 2009, by Montana State Rep. Mike More as HJ 26. Montana thus joins the recent wave of fiery state sovereignty resolutions. And as with the New Hampshire Resolution, the Montana resolution borrows heavily from Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and then lists particular acts that would nullify the Constitution and void the compact by which Montana became a state - that is a threat to secede if the feds step too far. Here is an excerpt:
(21) That any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order of the United States that assumes a power not delegated by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights diminishing the liberty of this state or its citizens constitutes a nullification of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights by the government of the United States, which would also breach Montana’s “Compact With the United States”. Acts that would cause a nullification and a breach include but are not limited to:
(a) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within a state without the consent of the legislature of that state;
(b) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war or pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(c) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(d) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;
(e) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; or
(f) any act regarding the right to keep and bear arms or further limitations on the right to bear arms, including any restrictions on the type or number of firearms or the amount or type of ammunition any law-abiding citizen may purchase, own, or possess.
(22) That if any act of Congress becomes law or if an Executive Order or Judicial Order is put into force related to the reservations expressed in this resolution, Montana’s “Compact With the United States” is breached and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually.
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Sound Familiar?
A quote ascribed to Karl Marx has been popping up a lot lately:
“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”
— Karl Marx, 1867, Das Kapital
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
State Sovereignty Movement - 31 & Counting! http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/
(UPDATE 21 – 03/01/09)
*** 31 States already are, are now claiming, or are planning for declaration of sovereignty. ***
==> We just lost Washington. I was contacted with information affiriming that WA Bill HJM-4009 was NOT given a hearing and is effectively DEAD. Call WA representatives and get this bill going again people! <==
NOTE: Based off of input from you wonderful guys and gals, I decided to change up the map again to handle the “sovereign states” data. I want the data to reflect the fact that some states have passed legislation already, but not within the last year or so. This distrinction between recent and older action may be an important point in some situations, but I won’t make that call. However, it has been suggested (by state representatives) that if your state isn’t working on something RIGHT NOW, then you should make every effort to get them to get started as soon as possible.
NOTE: Sovereignty is NOT the same as Secession. These states (except for Hawaii) are not claiming to leave the union (for now).
All of these ‘movements’ (except for Hawaii) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment. Hawaii is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that Hawaii was never really a state of the U.S.A..
However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed, FOCA-type laws, or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play. Check them out:
)]
States That Have Had Sovereignty Action Within the Last Year or So:
- Arizona (AZ): [CLICK HERE and HERE]
- Oklahoma (OK): [CLICK HERE and HERE - 99% done... stay tuned! (I'll count it as passed for now
States That Have Had Sovereignty Action Within the Last 20 Years:
- California (CA): [CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO and HERE]
- Colorado (CO): [CLICK HERE for bill text - HERE for the scan]
- Louisiana (LA): [CLICK HERE - §26]
- Massachusetts (MA): [CLICK HERE - Article IV]
- Utah (UT): [CLICK HERE and search for HJR003 or HERE for a pdf]
States Claiming Sovereignty:
- Arkansas (AR): [CLICK HERE]
- Georgia (GA): [CLICK HERE]
- Hawaii (HI): [General info: HERE or HERE -- SCOTUS Case: HERE for docket & HERE or HERE for summary]
- Indiana (IN): [CLICK HERE]
- Iowa (IA): [CLICK HERE and more info HERE]
- Kansas (KS): [CLICK HERE for bill text - hearing date set for approx. 03/04!]
- Kentucky (KY): [CLICK HERE and HERE]
- Michigan (MI): [CLICK HERE (HCR No. 4)]
- Minnesota (MN): [CLICK HERE - more info HERE and HERE]
- Missouri (MO): [CLICK HERE -- CLICK HERE for even more info (but currently broken)]
- Montana (MT): [CLICK HERE]
- New Hampshire (NH): [CLICK HERE]
- South Carolina (SC): [CLICK HERE]
- Tennessee (TN): [CLICK HERE or HERE]
- Texas (TX): [THIS WEBSITE has good Republic of Texas info & bill text HERE, HERE, and HERE] *NEW LINKS*
- Virginia (VA): [CLICK HERE for the new bill -- HERE and HERE for the old] *NEW*
States Planning / Motioning Toward Claiming Sovereignty:
- Alabama (AL): (Sources below*)
- Alaska (AK): (Sources below*)
- Idaho (ID): (Sources below*)
- Maine (ME): (Sources below*)
- Nevada (NV): (Sources below*)
- Ohio (OH): (CLICK HERE, HERE, and HERE) *NEW*
- Pennsylvania (PA): (CLICK HERE for page and HERE for text & Sources below*)
- West Virginia (WV): (CLICK HERE — Bill text HERE)
[Source # 1] & [Source # 2] for the “pending / planning” states. States on the ‘Watch List’ (these are not counted in the total & not on the map):
- Deleware (DE): [CLICK HERE for a petition] *NEW*
- Florida (FL): [CLICK HERE for a petition]
- New Mexico (NM): [CLICK HERE for a petition] *NEW*
- North Carolina (NC): [CLICK HERE for a petition] *NEW*
- Oregon (OR): [CLICK HERE for a draft bill - should be seeing light soon!] *NEW*
- Washington (WA): [CLICK HERE -- UPDATE: The bill is stagnant/dead... CALL THESE REPS AND GET IT GOING!!!] *NEW*
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Could this be an ominous shadow drawing on the end of the United States of America? For years the Federal Government has presumed to be the all-powerful force governing our country, but it just could be that the Federal Government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and the citizens thereof. States declaring sovereignty sounds like an act of secession and revolution. However the federal government can apparently be dissolved and another one formed anew at the discretion of the states. The existing Federal government may not leave willingly like so many European governments that are replaced routinely and it may engage a military effort with our own soldiers or the likes of a Black Water illegal military invasion to retain total control over us.
United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing, these events. This is predicated on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation, which states that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation [now Federation] expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the U S Constitution’s Tenth Amendment however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi.
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791 and states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Historically, this was done to reassert the assignment of the remaining rights to the states and the people of our country if they were not specifically delegated by our Constitution to the United States Government. Further, Amendment Nine on the Construction of the Constitution, Ratified on 15 December 1791 states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Arizona State Legislature is currently formulating a bill that declares their state sovereignty. Their bill further asserts their state’s right during martial law to call back servicemen to protect Arizona state, “…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state …” There is more near the end of this article.
A lot of this recent activity has come about due to the reckless demise of the banking system now and also in memory of the past during the great depression that fomented during 1929. There is a Russian academic, Igor Panarin who recently predicted that the United States would break apart into about six separate regions by 2010. Predictions of similar persuasion have been made before, rather they are right or not some big problems may soon ensue.
Much of the presidential character of the cabinet assembled by President Obama is representative of that of the previous administration. Obama perhaps is keeping the Adage, “keep your friends close and keep your enemies even closer.” A disrespect for our so-called leaders is met from our so-called leaders disrespect for us the citizens of our country. Should this be the case yet again, this would establish further reason for the states course of recent action
It may seem ironic that as we have a President from the land of Lincoln, and one who admires Lincoln, that another civil war could be brewing. It’s further ironic that states are beginning to fight back. Many individuals that were imprisoned by Abraham Lincoln for advocating their free speech on issues of the day. These times may be as exciting and revolutionary as when our country was beginning. Benjamin Franklin said something on the order of, “if we do not hang together, we most certainly will hang separately.” Its also ironic that our revolutionary war was with Great Britain and that the so-called Federal Reserve Board (The Banksters) is a corporate instrument of Great Britain, still engorging itself with our blood, our wealth and our money.
The state sovereignty issue was discussed on late night radio on Coast-to-Coast AM. Comments reflected by Alex Jones indicate federal misjurisdiction of its authority that is infringing on state matters and on individual rights. States formed this federal government and it may be disempowered by 34 states [2/3rds]. The Federal government may have disenfranchised itself by making treatise that subvert its powers. As such the Federal government may already be insolvent even though it’s still operating. There is mostly Republican, some Democratic and much nonpartisan sponsorship on recreating state sovereignty to resolve these issues. Take a look at these links: click here and here.
Strings attached by the federal government to returning state money for federal programs may be invalid. States are rejecting federal intervention. Issues at hand involve the National Guard, Posse Commentates, and FEMA Prisons for events of rebellion [or civil demonstration] and revolution and a reimposition of the concept of establishing a North American Union. Take a look at Jerome Corsi’s book, “The Late Great USA”.
Federal negation of states’ rights is selling us out and is treasonous is among the repressive efforts against the states. States may dissolve this federal government. An effort in Missouri to push for sovereignty began three years ago when Missouri started to revive interest in its sovereignty. Other issues are 2nd Amendment Rights being taken away and the institution of civil disobedience, revolution and re-evaluation of where we want our government to go.
Unfunded mandates are forcing issues that the states will block is just one of many issues at hand. The Federal Government essentially has succeeded from our union. PDD-51, part of The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, allows for martial law a lot too easily; this is really not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.
The negation of Congressional authority by the Executive branch is further ammunition for the states to declare their sovereignty. Congress has become a ceremonial branch of the government with no real power left. Congress has just given up its power by not reading the legislation it is being persuaded to pass hurriedly. Nobody in Congress seems to read the bills they pass. We must educate ourselves or suffer the consequences for lack of knowledge. Presidents have become front men for wealthier world powers.
Generally all state resolutions and bills to regain states inherent rights are a perfectly legitimate concept. While succession could be a possibility, the dissolution of the entire federal government and the institution of a new one predicated mostly on our current one is a distinct possibility.
It has come to the point where the banks are controlling Washington DC [or, is it the Bilderbergers as part of the new world order?]. Or is it just the old world order they are trying to recreate? The use of crises to terrorize us and promote a new world order, based not on what is good for us, but for them! Any world government that should arise must be democratic and not arbitrary. Actually, it is still the Old World Order that the new world order advocates guised in the remains of globalism misused.
The primary Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government are to control our borders, our currency and our military of which they are abdicating on all of these. Granted there is an enumeration in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution providing for eighteen or so in total responsibilities and rights. Clause 18, considered the expansion or elastic clause states, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The union is already gone and America has been sold out to foreign banks. States have the right to dissolve the federal government in order to reconstitute it. There is a non-democratic globalist effort that is stealthily moving ahead with its plan for a world government and economy made in their image, not ours.
The Constitutional principle in the Tenth Amendment is reflective of Federalism in that by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. In the Articles of Confederation, a precursor to our Federal Government today, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
Once our Constitution was ratified, many desired the addition of a similar amendment limiting the Federal government to powers to those “expressly” delegated; this would have denied the use of implied powers. These powers result under the Elastic Clause the Constitution. Those implied powers are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are considered to be implied in Section Eight of our Constitution.
This document lets the government create Legislation and laws they considered necessary and proper so that they may remain in force, to meet as then or in the future unanticipated applications of the Constitution. The word “expressly” did not appear in the final version of the Tenth Amendment as it then was ratified.
Some state representatives on late night radio Coast to Coast AM were Matt Shea - WA, Jim Guest - MO, Dan Itse - NH, & Charles Key – OK provided a range of views on this subject. Click here.
In response to increasing federal encroachment, a growing number of states have passed and proposed resolutions to assert the Tenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
The Declaration Of Independence states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
A new vision for America is in the works. This is not just about state sovereignty, but America’s Sovereignty. We will be rebuilding America in the image we want, not what outsiders want. We are not ending America, but providing it a new beginning.
Here in are some of the resolutions and portions thereof:
A small portion from the resolution in Arizona created in 2009: “Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:
1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”
~~~
Each state’s resolution has some language that is about the same but also has more to say in many cases. The California Resolution initiated in 1994 reads thusly,
“WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.”
~~~
While each State Resolution and/or Bill is written somewhat differently but expresses much of the same determination. New Hampshire has a rather interesting and long dissertation in its resolution, excerpted here are some poignant points,
“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government . . .”
February 19, 2009
Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government
by Lance L. Landon
http://www.opednews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Firestorm-Brewing-Between-by-Lance-L-Landon-090217-130.html
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Could it be for: (as passed on to me)
Comment by rongrand — March 1, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
Ted , you need to hear this podcast. Alan keys Lawyer interviewed on Tamar Yona Dr, Orly Taitz
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/710
Comment by yamit82 — March 1, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
My comment (the 8th one - oldest first) following the Peters piece:
Nowhere in Obama’s speech to the Marines did he talk of “victory” or “winning” the war, only countless references to “ending” it.
Tha facts are: now in Iraq there are free elections, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, al-Qaida is crushed, and terrorism is very low. In Iraq, democracy is growing and it a beacon of hope in a cesspool of Islamic tyranny. Saddam Hussein and his two maniacal sons are all enjoying their virgins.
All of this was achieved by President George W. Bush who had the courage and steadfastness to surge our troop level and WIN. Yes, WIN. Iraq is an American victory and it would not have been so if we had done as Bush’s detractors - including Mr. Obama - wanted.
Obama is able to remove the troops because of Bush’s victory. Did he have the magnanimity to thank Bush for his courage? To thank the troops for the victory that they achieved? Of course not. That would have been an admission that he was wrong. He was and he still is.
The Iraq war isn’t “ending” Mr. Obama. It’s a stunning victory - because of your predecessor and in spite of you.
And you, President Obama, are a national DISGRACE.
Comment by pbirman — March 2, 2009 @ 10:08 am
American victory in Iraq was never clearly a defined war aim. We know a deal was cut with Iran allowing them to gain nukes for the lowering the insurgency therefore giving an impression of American if not victory a seemingly stable situation ; in order to allow America to quit Iraq and declare victory. Israel was thus essentially sacrificed for the hollow and fake image of America winning a war. The kurds in the north and the shia in the center and south will divide the country by force of Arms and subversion. Iran will be the big winner, maybe even the Kurds, The Russians will have cleaned up financially and gained an ally, Iran ,The Chinese lucrative contracts but America will be the loser and Israel will be expected to disappear in a Mushroom cloud.
Comment by yamit82 — March 2, 2009 @ 11:58 am
[...] Israpundit » Blog Archive » OBAMA’S PHONY PULLOUT (israpundit.com) - March 01, 2009Issues at hand involve the National Guard, Posse Commentates, and FEMA Prisons for events of rebellion [or civil demonstration] and revolution and a reimposition of the concept of establishing a North… [...]
Pingback by Fema Prisons — March 3, 2009 @ 11:56 am
[...] an Obama conspiracy? May that’s a little bit more believable. Strings attached by the federal government to [...]
Pingback by FEMA Prisons? Who Knew? « Whassup, Peoples? — March 3, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
[...] an Obama conspiracy? May that’s a little bit more believable. Strings attached by the federal government to [...]
Pingback by secret FEMA prisons | seeitmore.com — March 3, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
[...] that the United Nations considers these methods as a form of torture. Usefull Posts Israpundit » Blog Archive » OBAMA’S PHONY PULLOUT…FEMA & Martial Law « Hope2012…7 Women Sentenced in FEMA Fraud « A1A [...]
Pingback by Hot News » Fema Prisons — March 21, 2009 @ 3:44 pm