Slavery is once more legal in the United States thanks to language buried deep inside Executive Order 13603, which Barack Obama signed into law on March 16th 2012. According to this Executive Order, the President - or those he designates - can conscript "persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation," in "peacetime and times of national emergency." In a nutshell, that means that Barack Obama, and those he designates, can seize any resource, property, or person at any time for any reason, forcing that person with labor without being paid. Even in peacetime.
There is only ONE definition for forced, "uncompensated employment." That definition is slavery.
This episode also includes an appeal to Federal, State, County, and Local law enforcement officers to uphold the oath they took to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States," by defending the citizens they have sworn to protect, even when the aggressor is a Federal Government that has devolved into nothing more than a Tyranny where one man (or those he designates) can order the enslavement of its citizens, their detention in labor and re-education camps - even their deaths - simply by signing a piece of paper.
PART ONE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn9CijyfUNA
PART TWO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ-3aUEcqxw
Executive Order 13603:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-22/pdf/2012-7019.pdf
Internment and Resettlement Field Manual:
http://publicintelligence.net/restricted-u-s-army-internment-and-resettlement-operations-manual/
Well, I'm going to be standing tall in front of "The Man" in about three hours to see how much more this suspended license BS is going to cost me. I've already had to sell my car in order to raise the $$$ to get my license back; EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS to the South Carolina Secretary of State just to get the suspension lifted! It's just as well I suppose, because the thing was a big green crap magnet anyway. I haven't been driving or course, but my son has. He's been stopped FOUR TIMES in the past week and a half, and each time they find some nit picky excuse to issue him a fine. My insurance is going to go through the roof. >:(
There is a big problem with Bath Salts and fake pot even here is the backwoods of Northern Michigan. I wish these cops would park outside of THOSE businesses, and harass THEIR customers, instead of parking down the block waiting for us to leave the house to harass us. One of these days they are going to realize that I'm on their side, that I have ALWAYS been on the side of local law enforcement, and if they have any morsel of a conscience they're gonna feel like real pricks; and I'm going to enjoy rubbing it in.
LMAO!!!
Slavery is already in operation in the US.
Prison's ARE being used to generate profit using labour. Work-fare or whatever you guys call it is also enforced lawfully. If the system cannot provide you with a job, you are asked to work for what someone else determines (OR YOU STARVE). That is clearly slavery as the labour is not given in the form of a contract AGREED BY THE LABOURER.
The USA is and has been for most of it's history a state that favours slavery.
Isn't that Executive Order a violation of the 13th amendment?
QuoteAMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=40&page=transcript (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=40&page=transcript)
J
I'm trying to figure out how and why "executive orders" became constitutional... I don't think they were written into the Constitution. If they were, please, someOne point Me in the right direction.
Having one Human able to create "laws" on Her/His say-so...is so counter to what I learned growing up while studying the Constitution. It is, in fact, dictatorial.
So... Why do We take these "executive orders" seriously? Why do We call them "laws?" (There are really only three Laws... All else is an edict, a mandate, a statute, a code, a rule, a mandate, a constitution, a declaration, and so forth.)
This pathetic crap is where our tax dollars go, so basically we are enslaving ourselves by paying those taxes, although we have to, and have no choice in the matter.
And what was that CI? Civilian internee? Our gubmint sure does sugarcoat everything they do, and anyone who reads that army paper will see what is coming, if we dont recognize the signs and stop it now!
Of course, what can we do against the PTB?
Not a darned thing, as we are already enslaved, and our slave quarters are just much larger now, than they will be when we get piled up in those fema camps, where they can excercise Naziesque tactics and population control.
Be prepared folks, its just a matter of time, and if you are in the thick of things, instead of a safe place where the military doesnt tread, youre toast!
To the hills, Jethro!!!
Of Antarctica that is!
It seems to be becoming a mantra these days...." will you aliens come down and help us ...please?!?!?"
Le
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 27, 2012, 03:00:19 PM
I'm trying to figure out how and why "executive orders" became constitutional... I don't think they were written into the Constitution. If they were, please, someOne point Me in the right direction.
Having one Human able to create "laws" on Her/His say-so...is so counter to what I learned growing up while studying the Constitution. It is, in fact, dictatorial.
So... Why do We take these "executive orders" seriously? Why do We call them "laws?" (There are really only three Laws... All else is an edict, a mandate, a statute, a code, a rule, a mandate, a constitution, a declaration, and so forth.)
You raised a good question and sent me searching.
QuotePresident George Washington issued the first executive order in 1789. Since then, all U.S. presidents have issued executive orders, ranging from Presidents Adams, Madison and Monroe, who issued only one each, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued 3,522 executive orders.
And then there is this:
QuoteWhile they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.
I added the bold for emphasis.
Source for quotes: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/Presidential-Executive-Orders.htm
A more studious explanation: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order
Now if the Constitution forbids slavery (Article XIII) and this Executive Order is an attempt to legalize it, which takes precedence?
J
I'm guessing We can all point and laugh at the puppet trying to pull a fast one. Thanks for the research!
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 27, 2012, 05:16:12 PM
I'm guessing We can all point and laugh at the puppet trying to pull a fast one. Thanks for the research!
Unfortunately for us, its a done deal:
Quote from: Bob Powell on June 27, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
Slavery is once more legal in the United States thanks to language buried deep inside Executive Order 13603, which Barack Obama signed into law on March 16th 2012.
(bold added for clarity)
The question that comes to mind is: "Can we undo this and how?" Does anyone have any ideas?
J
We are all slaves.
You are sold to the state when Your birth certificate is registered, and a DEBT is raised against that name.
You promise to repay that debt throughout your life.
This is a usary debt based slave system, where the slaves don't realise they are slaves, they think they live in the land of the free.
The invasions recently have been to install this debt based system into those countries.
To enslave the population in debt.
Here in the UK they have recentlt rolled out ...workfare, an obnoxious worded scheme where the unemployed must work for nothing, or loose their benefits.
It's basically the corperate slave drivers cracking their whips.
hobbit
Quote from: hobbit on June 27, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
We are all slaves.
You are sold to the state when Your birth certificate is registered, and a DEBT is raised against that name.
You promise to repay that debt throughout your life.
This is a usary debt based slave system, where the slaves don't realise they are slaves, they think they live in the land of the free.
The invasions recently have been to install this debt based system into those countries.
To enslave the population in debt.
Here in the UK they have recentlt rolled out ...workfare, an obnoxious worded scheme where the unemployed must work for nothing, or loose their benefits.
It's basically the corperate slave drivers cracking their whips.
hobbit
If I'm not mistaken, Hobbit, the US has begun to implement the same program for the unemployed.
I'm stunned that I didn't know about this Executive Order until now. I truly must have my head in the sand.
Sadly, I've posted this information several times. I have not had even one response.
J
Quote from: Lady Jae on June 27, 2012, 06:51:28 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Hobbit, the US has begun to implement the same program for the unemployed.
I'm stunned that I didn't know about this Executive Order until now. I truly must have my head in the sand.
Sadly, I've posted this information several times. I have not had even one response.
J
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ULopfMGpr4&feature=fvwrel
It's a very long term agenda.
I have stood in the cells under Liverpool where the slaves were held ...OUT OF SIGHT...until bought and shipped on, bizzarely the CAVERN where the beatles played is right beside these.
If Lennon only had known??
hobbit
Quote from: hobbit on June 27, 2012, 07:06:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ULopfMGpr4&feature=fvwrel
It's a very long term agenda.
I have stood in the cells under Liverpool where the slaves were held ...OUT OF SIGHT...until bought and shipped on, bizzarely the CAVERN where the beatles played is right beside these.
If Lennon only had known??
hobbit
A most eye-opening video, Hobbit. Thank you for sharing that.
Yes, if Lennon had only known.
J
This Executive Order was first discussed here at the below link, starting at reply #9. If more has developed since then, on this, from the administration, I am not aware of it.
For the most part, there is not much new, other than department titles, when compared to similar prior Presidential Executive orders, by Bush, Clinton, and etc.. "Supposedly", this is simply an update to those prior EO's, to reflect latest titles, and etc.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=731.0
I am posting a link to the EO for anyone who is actually interested in what it says. And below, I will post here a reply I made in the above forum thread, that was someone else's thoughts on just what this EO really amounts to - which was "not much to be concerned about.
EO link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
It is my hope that this information can give us all a little clearer understanding of where this Executive came from, at the least!! Do I trust President Obama? Absolutely not, because he has demonstrated openly that he doesn't speak the truth - rather he speaks what is profitable politically, to his agenda.
My 3/23/2012 reply post, from the above OP thread:
When I first saw this Executuve order, I too was very concerned, because of what I thought I was seeing in what Obama was trying to do. Well, fortunately, for me, that is now not a problem, because of a report I found on the internet. Assuming that it is accurate, I don't think that this doc gives us any more to worry about than what is already "on our political plates".
I am posting this report below for all of you, and hopefully it will help you as it has me.
"What me worry??
rdunk
*****************************************************
Obama executive order nothing to storm the castle over
Published: 5:55 PM 03/18/2012
By David Martosko
Executive Editor
Bio | Archive | Email David Martosko Follow David Martosko
Get David Martosko Feed
David Martosko is The Daily Caller's executive editor. He is the father of two, a frequent public speaker, and a graduate of Dartmouth College and the Johns Hopkins University.
On Friday President Obama signed an executive order titled "National Defense Resources Preparedness," and by Saturday the conservative Twitterverse had erupted into righteous indignation, organized under the ExecOrder. But the 140-character expressions of outrage and the anti-Obama tea party angst masked the fact that very little in the presidential proclamation is new.
Most of it combines existing executive orders from Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Those earlier orders refined similar statements from Presidents Harry Truman and Richard Nixon.
And Truman and Nixon, it turns out, were both updating language from President Roosevelt after the passage of the Defense Production Act in 1950.
While Obama's executive order is written in sophisticated legislative verbiage, its aim should be clear to anyone who reads it from front to back as I did. (You're welcome.)
And Microsoft Word has a nifty "compare" feature that combines two documents into a single version with every single difference, no matter how small, spelled out in red. It's a huge time-saver.
So what's new since 1994?
When Bill Clinton issued his version of the plan to prepare the country for some unstated national military emergency, most disaster response functions were assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Today, those functions belong to the Department of Homeland Security, whose sub-agencies include FEMA. Most of the significant changes from Clinton's order to Obama's involve reassigning FEMA's old duties to DHS — which didn't exist when Clinton was president. Obama did this in 10 separate places.
But in large part, the function of this executive order — in all its historical incarnations — is to clearly delineate what each cabinet secretary is responsible for if the country should go kablooey.
Obama also axed the FEMA director's prior role as a tie-breaking vote whenever two cabinet secretaries might disagree about allocating resources in a time of emergency. From now on that decision will land on the president's desk.
After the black eye FEMA got — deserved or not — following Hurricane Katrina, this is at minimum a smart PR move.
Obama also red-lined the Export-Import Bank of the United States from Clinton's order completely. But even that is probably meaningless: The Ex-Im Bank's charter is set to expire this year, but Obama is strongly in favor of its renewal.
Another curious change involves the Department of Agriculture's mandate. New language from Obama includes, for the first time, "livestock resources, veterinary resources, [and] plant health resources."
It also expands the definition of "food resources" to include "potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers." On the other hand, Obama has curiously eliminated tobacco form the list of things the government can — and has been able to since before any of us were born — control if an unfriendly power should ever drop the big one on New York City.
All of this seems completely sensible.
Still, breathless statements flooded Twitter over the weekend, by Sunday reaching a pace of about 20 per minute.
"To Obamabots and other asleep #Americans: Wake the hell up! New Executive Order dated March 16th. Prepare yourselves!" read one.
"Obama's 'Dictator' executive order. Read it & tell me if you REALLY believe Hitler comparisons are legit," said another.
Other tweets warned that Obama aims to "make it easier to push America N2 totalitarianism like China" and had seized "the power to STOP ALL ELECTIONS." One Twitter user said that in the wake of the executive order, "I've decided to buy stock in Guillotine companies."
The most common tweeted phrase about the executive order, by far, was "peacetime martial law."
The narrow span of initial reactions from conservative websites ranged from "stunning" and "harassing" to "totalitarian" and "the blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law." One typical thread simply declared that the president had "gone too far."
What's maddening about this, aside from the fact that so few commentators, clearly, had actually read the order, is the knee-jerk assumption that Barack Obama is somehow less trustworthy — at the molecular level — with his constitutional powers than was Bill Clinton.
Yes, the Internet has turned political events into tinder with a ferocity Clinton never faced. And yes, the political right harbors an intense distrust of the Oval Office's current occupant.
But the idea that he would, in an election year, suddenly declare himself the singular steward and controller of all private property, or put himself in solitary control of the water supply or reinstitute the draft — all accusations I've read online in the past day — is ludicrous.
If you want to see what any legislative or regulatory language really means, skip over all the nouns (like food, water, fertilizer and fuel) and look at the verbs.
Columnist Ed Morrissey spotted a few in Obama's executive order: "identify," "assess," "prepare," "improve," "foster [cooperation]," "provide." These aren't exactly words that suggest lots of action. I don't see "usurp," "hijack" or "shanghai."
I also don't see anything in the executive order that establishes a new legal authority of any kind. Not only is the language old hat, but it spells out which laws the White House is relying on for its authority.
So this is all pretty thin soup.
If we can't trust the president — any president — to look at what's going on and make his cabinet secretaries play nice, we have bigger problems than who's going to control the next corn crop if Putin starts punching in launch codes instead of his ATM password.
So everyone just chill, okay? It's time to crumple up those tinfoil hats. At least for a week or so.
Quote from: rdunk on June 27, 2012, 07:56:23 PM
This Executive Order was first discussed here at the below link, starting at reply #9. If more has developed since then, on this, from the administration, I am not aware of it.
It's time to crumple up those tinfoil hats. At least for a week or so.
Thank you, rdunk. Being a new member, I missed your posts.
I still do not like the wording of this EO...regardless of whose words they are.
I will put my "tin foil hat" away, but I reserve the right to cling tightly to my Constitution.
My question still stands though: which takes precedence?
J
Quote from: Lady Jae on June 27, 2012, 08:38:39 PM
Thank you, rdunk. Being a new member, I missed your posts.
I still do not like the wording of this EO...regardless of whose words they are.
I will put my "tin foil hat" away, but I reserve the right to cling tightly to my Constitution.
My question still stands though: which takes precedence?
J
Has He, has declared a national emergency because of the russian nuclear threat?????
Whatever that EGO laden so called president wants.
hobbit
"My question still stands though: which takes precedence"?
Lady, that should be an easy question to answer!!!!! No one - - not the President, not the Senate, not Congress, and not Justice - - can do any thing, or make any law, that violates the written word, and intent, of the Constitution of the United States.
Any thing desired otherwise, by any of these parties, that is not provided for in the Constitution, that party must take the necessary steps to obtain an amendment to the Constitution, that requires ratification by the States.
And yes, all of the parties mentioned, in moving into their positions, must promise to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.
And yes, this President, in my "unlearned opinion", has violated his oath numerous times, most recently relative to "not upholding the laws of the United States, regarding illegal immigrants. He basically has said, "i am not going to enforce the laws of the United States", regarding illegal immigrants.
Yes, that should be an impeachable offense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/banhim.gif)
It is pretty much unheard of for a POTUS to saywhat amounts to, " I refuse to enforce the laws of the country"!!!! Sad! So sad!!!
But, that can be fixed in November 2012!!!
Okay, I'm very new here (hi!) so be nice.
I understand next to nothing about Constitutional law and also definitely have no understanding of what is 'normal' for Presidents to do and sign, and what is not. Seems like an awful lot of Executive Orders get signed and then nothing much pertaining to them happens afterwards.
The thought puzzle I'd like to put out there for anyone who cares to respond is this:
What if:
Obama knows something BIG we don't? I'm presuming he does, frankly. The Presidential Daily Briefing costs a reported $1 Million a week, should be stuff in there that we're not privy to. What if this involves a scientific or military consensus that something pretty drastic is going to happen in the next few months to a year? Something related to earth changes, an incoming asteroid, aliens having administered Earth leaders an ultimatum, the 2012 soon-to-ramp-up-severely panic, weather anomalies, all those booms actually being underground bases being taken out, the level of contamination from Fuku becoming devastatingly obvious and resultant public reactions... etc. and so forth. Or, for the Love of Gawd, all of the above.
While I'm exceedingly unhappy with his actions from the git-go (should have arrested Dubya, Cheney and a heckova lot of other people, waterboarded a few (sold the rights on Pay-Per-View to pay down the national debt!!) and gotten some real answers on 9-11 and a whole lot of other things... but I digress...)
I can't help but wonder if he's not very wisely or at least prudently putting into place some Executive abilities to handle what he and only a few others know is coming down the road. I know a lot of people hate him with a passion the same way I hated Dubya but one thing is certain to my mind; this guy is a helluva lot smarter than the Bushes and I don't think he's a sociopath although he may easily be controlled; that's almost a given these days.
Anyone like to surmise possible scenarios that we have no way of knowing about?
And by the way, Bob - I caught your video investigation and arrest in almost real time on ATS. Wow. Mega kudos and Much Respect man. We need a couple million more like you.
only comment i have is
the only difference between this one and the last is this one said it
while the last one just did it
He basically has said, "i am not going to enforce the laws of the United States", regarding illegal immigrants.
Yes, that should be an impeachable offense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote: "I know a lot of people hate him with a passion the same way I hated Dubya but one thing is certain to my mind; this guy is a helluva lot smarter than the Bushes and I don't think he's a sociopath"
Obviously, I am one that pretty much totally disagree with your assessment of Presidents. Obama is on record as being the very worst President this country has ever had. He is a socialist, and that is obvious in his agenda. He associates with terrorists, and that is obvious, by learning about the people who he associates with, now and in the past.
Whatever smartness Obama might have, is absolutely not relative to the position of President of the United States. That is primarily because he is so "unAmerican" in all that he does, except "play golf, and shoot basketballs", which tends to make him appear to be something that he is not!!
Obama is being seriously vetted at Breibart.com, by people interested in getting the truth out, about him, and his hidden agenda!
It has been recently proven by Obama's own book writer, that Obama lied multiple times in his own book of "Memoirs", about many important aspects of his life. Several things he said that happened, just didn't happen!! That is who this president is, and nothing can change that,
He must be voted out, or this country, in the next four years will become a "hellhole" much like so many of the other third-world countries around the world. THIS COUNTRY IS BROKE NOW!! JUST WHERE DO WE THINK SEVERAL TRILLION MORE DOLLARS OF OBAMA DEBT WILL TAKE US???? Yes, "change must come"!!
I just didn't have the time to express how I really feel on this subject!! ;) ;)
Quote from: rdunk on June 28, 2012, 03:22:11 AM
Obviously, I am one that pretty much totally disagree with your assessment of Presidents. Obama is on record as being the very worst President this country has ever had. He is a socialist, and that is obvious in his agenda. He associates with terrorists, and that is obvious, by learning about the people who he associates with, now and in the past.
Whatever smartness Obama might have, is absolutely not relative to the position of President of the United States. That is primarily because he is so "unAmerican" in all that he does, except "play golf, and shoot basketballs", which tends to make him appear to be something that he is not!!
Obama is being seriously vetted at Breibart.com, by people interested in getting the truth out, about him, and his hidden agenda!
It has been recently proven by Obama's own book writer, that Obama lied multiple times in his own book of "Memoirs", about many important aspects of his life. Several things he said that happened, just didn't happen!! That is who this president is, and nothing can change that,
He must be voted out, or this country, in the next four years will become a "hellhole" much like so many of the other third-world countries around the world. THIS COUNTRY IS BROKE NOW!! JUST WHERE DO WE THINK SEVERAL TRILLION MORE DOLLARS OF OBAMA DEBT WILL TAKE US???? Yes, "change must come"!!
Errrr.... please define what a 'socialist' is and why it's so bad. May I remind you that there are several socialist countries in Northern Europe that are rated by the people that live there as the happiest places on the planet.
'Associates with terrorists': Gee, you could say that about Dubya also. I consider Cheney a terrorist. I consider GHWB a terrorist. It was one thing to consider anti-war militant behavior during the Vietnam era. It's a totally other thing to be complicit or completely militarily incompetent during an attack on American soil. What is a terrorist? I think it's easy to define. Anyone who would bomb innocent people is a terrorist. How many Presidents are innocent of that? Only they never call it 'murder'. It's always unavoidable 'collateral damage'.
"Obama is on record as being the worst president ever"? What record? Whose record? That's sorta one of those things that's in the eye of the beholder and of course his record is not helped by a Congress who vowed to make sure he had a failed Presidency, even if the entire country went down the tubes in the process.
Breitbart ? Please. He and his followers are hardly the arbiters of what the country needs or what would be good for us. I don't see any of them stepping up to the plate and actually offering suggestions on improving things. They're hatemongers with barely hidden racist issues.
Define 'unAmerican' and remove the strange discussion about golf and basketball. Someone's chosen sport hardly defines their 'American-ness'. Except for Romney's horse of course. Nuthin like being an Olympic athlete to make you patriotic!
What was in his memoirs that was
proven to be untrue? Since I don't read crap like Breitbart, I'm unaware of the allegations. Please include actual, you know. Facts.
What I *am* aware of is, his background and young years are rather murky compared to people who spent more time in the US growing up. That's probably to be expected. I'm pretty sure that the first thing that happens to a new President is they're taken into a dark room and shown a close-up full color digitally enhanced version of the Zapruder film and told, 'nice family you got there' and then are told that their 'legacy' will be allowed to be secured by getting one, maybe two of their campaign promises borne out, the rest will happen as someone else who's really running the show decides. I think they're given intel and cointel filled with massive amounts of military-style paranoia about the world (read Philip Corso's memoirs for more on that).
As far as the US going to hell in a handbasket; of course we're bankrupt. Bush II was fully complicit in that; in fact his last act as president was the final coup de grace, stealing billions (or was it trillions?, it's so hard to keep track) from the people to give to his buddies in banking.
Finally, please list which President has NOT done something impeachable. Considering bombing another country without benefit of Congressional declaration of war would come under that heading, I can't think of anyone since Truman that wouldn't have been impeachable.
Quote from: FrozenAlchemy on June 28, 2012, 04:47:18 AM
Anyone who would bomb innocent people is a terrorist. How many Presidents are innocent of that? Only they never call it 'murder'. It's always unavoidable 'collateral damage'.
Well, Obama has certainly taken up a new terror from the sky,
on record as the official oversight of the "kill list" according
to the New York Times...and that does put him on record
as The POTUS with the most drone strikes ever in foreign countries,
not to mention the drones at home.
I think that sets him apart from all of the others.
Granted. The toys to kill with are getting more technologically advanced. At some point they won't have to have an Army anymore. Just drones.
Around where I live, people will shoot those things out of the sky for target practice if they have a chance.
Of course, I agree with nothing you said Frozen! So, it would waste both of our times for me to reply on anything.
I will simple state again, Obama has outright lied completely, even to his own constituents, relative to what he intended to do in office. There are plenty of places to compare what he said, and what he has done! Totally different. He simply failed to keep any of his promises!! And that is true, even while he controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of his presidency.
Nope, the debt of the trillions of dollars is totally on Obama's shoulders. He has "blown billions" in every direction you can look, that finally adds up to "real dollars". :)
Give 'Joe the Plumber" a call, he can tell it to you straight, if "straight" is something you want to hear.
If Socialism is something that floats anyone's boat, then vote for Obama. At the present, we do still have the freedom of choice to vote for whoever we want, but, that too may end, if we continue with this extreme leftist, and that is what Obama is, proven by his actions.
You asked for definition: socialist - ie socialism
so·cial·ism? ?[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Quote from: FrozenAlchemy on June 28, 2012, 05:10:54 AM
At some point they won't have to have an Army anymore. Just drones.
Around where I live, people will shoot those things out of the sky for target practice if they have a chance.
Oh, wow the things we have to look forward to thanks
to Obama's "kill list" ?
Drones shot from the sky? Now where again was that?
hey
it would happen around here also..shooting drones. i mean
sadly it wouldn't be the rednecks it would be the woods plant growers..lol
Quote from: sky otter on June 28, 2012, 06:07:17 PM
hey
it would happen around here also..shooting drones. i mean
sadly it wouldn't be the rednecks it would be the woods plant growers..lol
I know of at least 3 more states where that drone would not only be shot down but hung on the wall as a trophy ;D
J
I still have a rew futaba radios, maybe we could commandeer them and make them work for us!
I love rc planes!
Le
hahahahah
LE
you mean reverse engineer advanced spook planes to turn the tables..
huh?...is that what you are saying? ;)