Showing posts with label Dictator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dictator. Show all posts

Thursday, March 7, 2013

For those protesting and getting arrested for it, its because you are breaking the law! The first ammendment was removed a while ago! Signed in secret by the welfare messiah OBAMA!

End Of Days News

One Hundred Twelfth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and twelve An Act To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
    Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds
    `(a) Whoever--
      `(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
      `(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
      `(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
      `(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
    or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
    `(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
      `(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
        `(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
        `(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
      `(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
    `(c) In this section--
      `(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
        `(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
        `(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
        `(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
      `(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

U.S. Army: Don't criticize Obama (Welcome to the New Amerika)

End Of Days News

obama_tight-lipped
 
A spokesman for the U.S. Army has sent an email to 6,000 employees with a strong subtext: Don’t criticize President Obama or any political party to members of the press.
 
The Weekly Standard published a copy of the email, distributed Friday by Stephen D. Abney, the chief public affairs official for the Army’s Joint Munitions Command, to all 6,000 employees he represents.
The email says:
From: Larson, Angela M CIV (US)
Sent: Friday, March
01, 2013 5:59 PM
To: USARMY RIA JMC List DL All JMC Pers
Subject: Sequestration – Media Tips
To JMC employees,
Because of media interest in sequestration and furlough, you may be approached or contacted by a reporter at some point and asked to comment.
If you don’t wish to speak with a reporter, politely decline.
If you agree to be interviewed, remember that you’re expressing your personal opinion, not that of anyone else – and certainly not the opinion of JMC or the Army.
Avoid giving an answer that might be perceived as criticism of the Commander in Chief or any political party.
If you’re asked to provide an official statement, refer the reporter to
JMC PAO, the official spokesperson for the command. Their number is [REDACTED].
v/r
Stephen D. Abney
Chief, Public Affairs
Joint Munitions Command
DSN [REDACTED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
The Weekly Standard reports that civilian employees also received the email.

Abney said the email was not meant for civilian contractors but can’t swear they did not receive it as well.

Abney told the Weekly Standard that he was just reminding employees that Obama is their boss.

The issue of free speech rights in the military is problematic. The Marine Corps gave Sgt. Gary Stein an “other than honorable” discharge for misconduct after he posted on Facebook: “Screw Obama. I will not follow all orders from him.”

Stein said he meant he wouldn’t follow unlawful orders from the president and that his comments were protected by the First Amendment.

He testified that his comment was part of a discussion about letting U.S. troops be put on trial for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.

Stein explained he was saying he would not follow orders if they included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or otherwise violating the Constitution.

He filed a preliminary injunction in federal court in Southern California, but Judge Marilyn Huff denied the request.

In April 2012, WND spoke with Gary Kreep, who at the time was executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, which defended Stein.

Among the other problems, said Kreep, was the fact that one of the prosecution witnesses had “obscene political comments” on his own Facebook page, yet he had not been disciplined.

Kreep added that a Marine officer who reportedly was to be a neutral adviser at a disciplinary hearing also took on the role of the prosecution.

The hearing also rejected a statement from Brig. Gen. David Brahms, a Marine for over 50 years, with 49 of them as a lawyer.

Brahms said in a written statement: “I do not believe that … the behavior in question violates the cited UCMJ provision.”

The statement also noted that Department of Defense directive 1344.10, which Stein is accused of violating, is difficult to understand.

“My reading of it indicates it is confusing and quite unhelpful. It is also inherently contradictory,” Brahms said. “If I cannot understand 1344.10 as a 74-year-old retired brigadier general and staff judge advocate to the Commandant of the Marines, there is little hope that a sergeant would understand.”

Brahms also challenged the prosecution’s position that Stein represented the Marine Corps with his postings.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Future for U.S.? 13% see dictator

AfterUS
 
One in seven Americans believes that the nation eventually will be ruled by a dictator, and another one in five says it eventually will break up into several sovereign regions, according to a new poll reflecting the dark shadow the country is facing.
 
More than one in four respondents believe the United States likely will collapse not just in their lifetime, but in the next decade, meaning the successor to Barack Obama would be unable to finish a second term.

Others believe a new “democracy” will arise from the ashes of the current republican form of government.

The results are from a telephone poll conducted for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Jan. 9-12 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.22 percentage points.

Asked to speculate on what would happen to the U.S. after a hypothetical failure of the current government, a plurality said they think some new sort of democracy would emerge.

Another 20 percent said they think the existing states would form into several different countries, based either on region or philosophical commonalities.

Just 13 percent said they think a dictator would rise to control.

But Fritz Wenzel, president of the polling organization, pointed out that than a third of the respondents said they were unsure what might happen, “an indication that this type of question is beyond what they conceive could ever happen.”

Those who identified themselves as “very liberal,” whose philosophies align most closely with those who now control Washington, were much more optimistic than the average. In that group, only 15 percent said it was likely that the nation would collapse during the next 10 years.

On the other end of the scale, 50 percent of those who are “very conservative” expressed that opinion.

On the fundamental question of expectations for a national implosion, more than 40 percent of the “liberals” said a new democracy would emerge. But only 21 percent of the “very conservative” agreed.

A full 42 percent of the respondents said they expect the nation to collapse in their lifetimes, based on the federal debt and “bloated” and “dysfunctional bureaucracy” that runs Washington.

Only 31 percent thought that very unlikely.

Thirty-eight percent said they expect a collapse within the next 20 years, and 27 percent believe it will happen during the next decade.

“No government lasts forever, and this survey shows that 42 percent believe it is likely the federal government is so badly in debt and is so dysfunctional and is so threatened by foreign enemies that it will collapse sometime during their lifetime,” Wenzel said.

“Just 51 percent said such a thing is unlikely during their lifetime, a remarkably low percentage given that we are talking about the collapse of the longest-running democratic republic in the history of the world. The guess among respondents appears to be that the collapse will occur in about 20 years, as 41 percent said as much. Just 27 percent said they think the country will collapse in the next 10 years.”

He found it “remarkable” that one in four Americans thinks the country is in its last decade of existence.

In related results, Wenzel earlier revealed that the seeds of tyranny already are present in America, with a heavily armed law enforcement presence and a population holding a disbelief that their government could do anything that would make them want to revolt.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

More proof that our KING of the US Barack Hussein Obama, does not care what the American people have to say!

White House now requires ‘We the People’ petitions to have 100,000 signatures for official response, instead of 25,000!

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/white-house-now-requires-we-the-people-petitions-to-have-100000-signatures-for-official-response/#ixzz2IGP3sFFm

Gun news compilation from www.arewelivinginthelastdays.com

DHS to 'Expand and Formalize Coordination' on Gun Control Efforts

  • Obama Tweets 8-Year-Old's Gun Control Plea to Rally Support
  • Gov. Perry: Using Massacre of Children to Advance Agenda 'Disgusts Me'...
  • FLASHBACK: Tyrants Who Have Used Children As Props...
  • Obama turns doctors into gun control snitches, and butchering the HIPPA law, running health care spy network
  • Expect Obama to Be More Aggressive in His Second Term                            


Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Joe Biden: White House eying 19 executive actions on guns

Joe Biden is shown. | AP Photo 

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Later this week, Obama will formally announce his proposals to reduce gun violence, which are expected to include renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips. But Biden, who has been leading Obama’s task force on the response, spent two hours briefing a small group of sympathetic House Democrats on the road ahead in the latest White House outreach to invested groups.
The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting.
The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said.
“It was all focusing on enforcing existing law, administering things like improving the background database, things like that that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).
The White House declined to comment on the details of what Obama will propose.

But Biden did indicate that the remains of the Obama campaign apparatus may be activated in the effort.
“He said that this has been a real focus on the policy and that the politics of this issue, that a strategy on the politics of the issue hasn’t been undertaken yet,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told POLITICO. “He did remind us that the campaign infrastructure is still accessible.”
Biden did not address two of the more significant issues in the gun debate: the appointment of a permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the role violent images in the entertainment industry play in the nation’s gun violence.


Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Could Obama be first 3-term president since FDR?

A huge copy of the United States Constitution. (Reuters / Yuri Gripas)
 
 
A United States congressman has introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which currently limits the president to serving only two terms as commander-in-chief.
Should the bill become a law, it could allow President Barack Obama to run for reelection yet again in 2016.
The bill, H.J. Res. 15, offers “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”
New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced the measure on January 4, after it did not make it to a floor vote in January 2011, the Daily Caller reports. Serrano has attempted to repeal the amendment for decades and proposed similar bills in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007.
Rep. Serrano’s initiatives are not dependent on any particular party, since he has tried to get the measure passed under the presidencies of both Democrats and Republicans. But if the bill makes it to the floor for a vote this year, President Obama, a Democrat, might have a chance at a third term in the White House, which would make him the first president to possibly seek a third term since Franklin Roosevelt.
Even though a repeal has not made it far in Congress, there have been several attempts at bringing it to the floor, which have garnered support from past presidents and prominent legislators. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) repeatedly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment while both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in office, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to repeal it in 1995. In 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced a similar resolution.
Former President Ronald Reagan told Barbara Walters in a 1986 interview that the 22nd Amendment “was a mistake,” while former President Bill Clinton has always believed in the option for a president to seek reelection at a later time – even if he has already served twice.
“Shouldn’t a president be able to take two terms, take time off and run again?” Clinton said in an MSNBC interview in November. “I’ve always thought that should be the rule. I think as a practical matter, you couldn’t apply this to anyone who has already served, but going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule.”
Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, but has never garnered enough votes to go into effect.
Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by 41 states and rejected by only two. It limits each president to two terms, but did not apply to the sitting president, former President Harry Truman, who withdrew as a candidate for re-election in 1952.