WARNING!!! Obama Requests 15,000 Russian Troops For “Upcoming” Disaster

End Of Days News

An unsettling report prepared by the Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM) circulating in the Kremlin today on the just completed talks between Russia and the United States in Washington D.C. says that the Obama regime has requested at least 15,000 Russian troops trained in disaster relief and “crowd functions” [i.e. riot control] be pre-positioned to respond to FEMA Region III during an unspecified “upcoming” disaster.

According to this report, this unprecedented request was made directly to Minister Vladimir Puchkov by US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Director Janet Napolitano who said these Russian troops would work “directly and jointly” with her Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of whose mission is tosecure the continuity of the US government in the event of natural disasters or war.

Important to note, this report says, is that FEMA Region III, the area Russian troops are being requested for, includes Washington D.C. and the surrounding States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, “strongly suggesting” that the Obama regime has lost confidence in its own military being able to secure its survival should it be called upon to do so.

In his public statements, yesterday, regarding these matters Minister Puchkov stated, “We have decided that the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and Russia's Emergencies Ministry will work together to develop systems to protect people and territory from cosmic impacts,” and further noted that his meeting with DHS Director Napolitano also covered other kinds of natural emergencies, such as recent years' extreme weather in both Russia and United States.

In this EMERCOM report, however, Minister Puchkov notes that the Russian troops being requested by the Obama regime would “more than likely” be paired with US-DHS troops who last year purchased nearly 2 billion rounds of ammunition and just this past month placed and emergency order for riot gear.

As to what “upcoming disaster” the US is preparing for, this report continues, appears to be “strongly related” to last weeks assassination of American reporter Michael Hastings who was killed while attempting to reach the safety of the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, and as we had reported on in our 20 June report Top US Journalist Attempting To Reach Israeli Consulate Assassinated.

Further to be noted about Hastings assassination by the Obama regime is the continued US mainstream propaganda news cover-up of it, though many freelance reporters continue to uncover the truth, such as Jim Stone whose investigation noted that the rear portion of Hastings car was blown open and shredded with the rest of the car nicely intact, which runs counter to the “official” story that this vehicle has hit a tree.

Not mentioned in this EMERCOM report is any suggestion that Russia would comply with this request from the Obama regime, especially in light of the horrifying information being given to Russian intelligence analysts from Edward Snowden who has been labeled as the most wanted man in the world. 

According to one Federal Security Services (FSB) bulletin on their continued debriefing of Snowden, and analysis of the information he has provided Russian intelligence officers, his father, Lonnie Snowden, was an officer in the US Coast Guard during the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States who had “direct knowledge” of the true events that occurred and whom the real perpetrators were.

Being directly affected by the events of 9/11, this FSB bulletin says, Snowden “self initiated” a multi-year effort to gain access to America’s top secrets, a mission which when recently completed led him to contact various international reporters, including Hastings, whom he believed could be trusted with disseminating the information he had obtained.

Read More: http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1688.htm

Sens. Cruz, Lee Fight for Religious Freedom for Military Service Members

End Of Days News

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced two amendments to protect the religious liberties of military service members, both of which passed last week in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

If passed by the full Senate and adopted into law, the amendments will:

• Strengthen existing law to protect the rights of conscience of military service members and protect troops who express their religious faith appropriately so that they are not discriminated against or subject to retaliation. The Lee-Cruz Amendment passed 19-7. All 12 Republicans on the committee supported the amendment, along with 7 Democrats. Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a corresponding amendment in the House, which prompted a veto threat from the Obama White House.
• Instruct the Defense Department Inspector General to investigate reports of religious discrimination against troops’ sharing their faith and also investigate any undue influence outside groups may have in creating Pentagon policy on religious matters. The amendment will also mandate an anonymous survey to determine whether the Pentagon is preventing chaplains from doing their jobs or trying to force chaplains to perform actions that violate their conscience. The Cruz amendment passed committee by voice vote.

Read More: http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/06/sens-cruz-lee-fight-for-religious-freedom-for-military-service-members/

Obama Administration “Strongly Objects” to NDAA Religious Liberty Amendment

End Of Days News

The Obama Administration announced its objection to an amendment offered in theNational Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014 (H.R. 1960)  that would expand and implement protection for the rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and their Chaplains.  They said in a statement of administration policy on the bill:

The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, “actions and speech” reflecting the “conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member.” By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.

This amendment was authored by Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) it was offered on June 5th.  In a statement released then Congressman Fleming said, “The men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms should not have their own religious freedom jeopardized during their military service. Steps to protect the religious liberties of our Armed Forces were taken in last year’s NDAA, but troubling reports indicate that the military may be focused only on protecting beliefs of service members and not the exercise or expression of those beliefs. My amendment is necessary to ensure that men and women of faith will not be discriminated against in the Armed Forces, and will be free to exercise their religious beliefs.”

Some of these troubling reports as reported by Todd Starnes of Fox News:

• An Air Force officer being told to remove his Bible from his desk because it might give the impression he is endorsing a religion.
• The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.
• A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
• A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.
• A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.
  
  
  Read More: http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/06/obama-administration-strongly-objects-to-ndaa-religious-liberty-amendment/

US House Passes Amendment to NDAA Regarding the National Defense of…Israel?

End Of Days News

US House Passes Amendment to NDAA Regarding the National Defense of…Israel?

Kimberly Paxton at The Daily Sheeple

An amendment to the NDAA passed the US House of Representatives on Friday. The pricey amendment doesn't apply to the national defense of the United States, but that of Israel.

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

End Of Days News

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Read More: http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319

Educate yourself about The National Defense Autorization Act!

End Of Days News

SEE VIDEO:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/states-pile-on-against-federal-detention-plan/#ooid=dmazNmOTpH1qYe5cN9UQVVnd4fvPd2O4

WASHINGTON – Bills opposing the controversial National Defense Authorization Act have popped up in both the Indiana and South Carolina state legislatures.

The NDAA was harshly criticized by some as unconstitutional due to language in Sections 1021 and 1022 that allows for the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens without due process.

Both bills would nullify the NDAA in its current form by denying law enforcement or any government official the right to carry out any act of detaining a citizen without due process.

 

In Indiana, the bill passed through the Corrections and Criminal Law Committee unanimously after testimony from sponsor Sen. Jim Banks and Elkhart County Sherriff Bradley Rodgers.

In South Carolina, the NDAA Nullification Act S.92 passed the Judiciary Committee 16-4. The bill was pre-filed last fall by Sen. Tom Davis who called Sections 1021 and 1022, “a direct threat to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of South Carolina.”

The next step for the bills in each state is to reach the floors of their respective Senates for a vote.

Shortly after the NDAA’s signing a bipartisan team including former Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf and Ronald Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein went to work opposing the provision of the NDAA which allows for the detention of U.S. citizens.

“Journalists aren’t safe. Union leaders aren’t safe. Activists aren’t safe. Liberty is not safe,” Wolf, an author of half a dozen books, said during a conference call to supporters.

People Against the NDAA (PANDA) Indiana Team Leader James Kerner praised Bank’s testimony saying, “I suggest the ACLU, Occupy movement, Tea Party movement and Oath Keepers throw their full support behind Sen. Banks. He should be made a household name like Ron Paul.”

Indiana and South Carolina are not the first states to take up issue with the NDAA. In early 2012, shortly after its signing, the Virginia House of Delegates passed legislation to nullify it 96-4. Arizona passed similar legislation. Numerous other states and local governments are considering similar bills.

“Concerns about NDAA detention provisions transcend political party, ideology, and geography, and representatives in these diverse jurisdictions have stood up to resist an ongoing bipartisan assault on constitutional rights by federal officials,” the committee announced.

While a debate about the scope of the NDAA’s potential abuses continues to distract congressional policymakers, who voted without realizing the law’s terrifying implications, their counterparts in state and local governments are proving more conscientious, proactively acting on their oaths of office to defend the Constitution.”

Groups including the Tenth Amendment Center, The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, The American Civil Liberties Union and Demand Progress have all been working since early 2012 to oppose the NDAA.

The detainment portion of Section 1021 of the NDAA is not the only part that has come under scrutiny over its constitutionality. Federal District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled last year that Section 1021 was facially unconstitutional because it had the potential to violate the 1st Amendment.

A group of journalists and activists had sued President Obama, Leon Panetta and a host of other government officials stating that they were forced to curtail some of their reporting and activism due to fear of violating the NDAA. Among the individuals were Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges, MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and “Pentagon Papers” activist Daniel Ellsberg.

In the following interview, Hedges explains what has happened in the Hedges vs. Obama NDAA lawsuit to date, the next steps and what he sees in America’s upcoming future.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/states-pile-on-against-federal-detention-plan/#oDmLebweVA0Uljj8.99

Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Constitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.
      

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill.
      

He must think we should be relieved.
      

The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.
      

Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the president’s reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.
      

But a few of our representatives have spoken up — sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems — though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.
      

So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Constitution to receive these documents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter — using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the president’s killing powers. That isn’t happening either.
      

Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own.
      

In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long line of Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can take cases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decide political questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them.
      

Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for a judge to rule on the merits of the basic constitutional questions at stake here. A pending case filed in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to the president’s killings of their relatives. We will see if the judge agrees to consider the constitutional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on his own power.
      

In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon, ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporters could not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandums that were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressed serious reservations about the president’s interpretation of the constitutional questions. But the merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos, so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read.
 

So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or don’t care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new constitutional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation.” In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving constitutional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it.
 

While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the election’s outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner “rein in” presidents by putting a “legal architecture in place.” His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death — of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them — but not when they kill them.
      

It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens.
      

Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/who-says-you-can-kill-americans-mr-president.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1



Obama rejects military chaplain conscience clause

An Army chaplain leads a troop of soldiers in worship. On Thursday, President Barack Obama called a new conscience clause for chaplains that gives them the right to abstain from certain religious rituals that contradict their faith as "unnecessary and ill-advised."

President Barack Obama called a conscience clause for military chaplains in the National Defense Authorization Act “unnecessary and ill-advised.”

The NDAA provision ordered that no member of the armed forces may require a chaplain to perform a rite or ceremony that violates the chaplain’s beliefs, and that chaplains may not be disciplined for refusing to perform such a ceremony.

The provision, which was introduced by now-former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, was a response to Obama’s 2011 repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/obama-criticizes-conscience-clause-for-military-chaplains#ixzz2GyiXtCxb