Attention Drawn in order to divert? What's this?
Following the cue from the ACLU’s divertive alarmism,
watchdogs like P.J. Watson at Infowars with Alex Jones
also jumped on (what appears to be) an intentionally misdirected ACLU bandwagon of suspicion, one all too quickly going the wrong way, it seems to me.
While the eyes of the nation should be directed at the House of Representatives Bill 1540 (Reported version 112-78),
the focus was upon Section 1034.
the focus was upon Section 1034.
The Section 1034 debates of HR 1540 (reported) were conducted by:
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.),
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.),
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.),
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.),
These 6 House Members debated on Section 1034 of the bill, with Ron Paul making the most dramatic impact that has swept virally through the Internet as stating that Section 1034 are the last nails in the coffin on the United States of America.
But is it really Section 1034 that we should be looking at?
Page 440
16 SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL17
QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED
18 FORCES.
19 Congress affirms that—
20 (1) the United States is engaged in an armed
21 conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated
22 forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat
23 to the United States and its citizens, both domestic
24 cally and abroad;
441
•HR 1540 RH
1 (2) the President has the authority to use all nec
2 essary and appropriate force during the current
3 armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and asso
4 ciated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
5 Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
6 note);
7 (3) the current armed conflict includes nations,
8 organization, and persons who—
9 (A) are part of, or are substantially sup
10 porting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated
11 forces that are engaged in hostilities against the
12 United States or its coalition partners; or
13 (B) have engaged in hostilities or have di
14 rectly supported hostilities in aid of a nation,
15 organization, or person described in subpara
16 graph (A); and
17 (4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Au
18 thorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
18 thorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
19 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority
20 to detain belligerents, including persons described in
21 paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
On its face, the concern over Section 1034 being the next "Enabling Act" (that act which propelled Adolf Hitler from German Chancellor to de facto Dictator of Germany, and made de jure as well the ff. year)...the perpetual war against Islamist Jihadists seems assured.
What instead should have been focused upon by Conservatives are these ff. passages from HR 1540:
Page 473, under Section 1055
(4) On March 29, 2011, the Assistant to the
9 President for National Security Affairs stated, ‘‘As we
10 implement New START, we’re making preparations
11 for the next round of nuclear reductions. Under the
12 President’s direction, the Department of Defense will
13 review our strategic requirements and develop options
14 for further reductions in our current nuclear stock
15 pile, which stands at approximately 5,000 warheads,
16 including both deployed and reserve warheads. To de
17 velop these options for further reductions, we need to
18 consider several factors, such as potential changes in
19 targeting requirements and alert postures that are re
20 quired for effective deterrence.’’.
Page 465,
12 SEC. 1052. PLAN ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW START
13 TREATY.
14 (a) PLAN REQUIRED.—Not later than December 12,
15 2011, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Sec
16 retary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the
17 Commander of the United States Strategic Command, shall
18 submit to the congressional defense committees and to the
19 Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representa
20 tives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
21 a plan for the Department of Defense to implement the nu
22 clear force reductions, limitations, and verification and
23 transparency measures contained in the New START Trea
24 ty.
466
1 (b) MATTERS INCLUDED.—The plan under subsection
2 (a) shall include the following:
3 (1) A description of the nuclear force structure of
4 the United States under the New START Treaty, in
5 cluding—
6 (A) the composition of intercontinental bal
7 listic missiles, submarine launched ballistic mis
8 siles, and bombers;
9 (B) the planned composition of the types
10 and quantity of warheads for each delivery vehi
11cle described in subparagraph (A);
12 (C) the number of nondeployed and retired
13 warheads; and
14 (D) the plans for maintaining the flexibility
15 of the nuclear force structure within the limits of
16 the New START Treaty.
17 (2) A description of changes necessary to imple
18 ment the reductions, limitations, and verification and
19 transparency measures contained in the New START
20 Treaty, including—
21 (A) how each military department plans to
22 implement such changes; and
23 (B) an identification of any programmatic,
24 operational, or policy effects resulting from such
25 changes.
467
•HR 1540 RH
1 (3) The total costs associated with the reductions,
2 limitations, and verification and transparency meas
3 ures contained in the New START Treaty, and the
4 funding profile by year and program element.
5 (4) An implementation schedule and associated
6 key decision points.
7 (5) A description of options for and feasibility of
8 accelerating the implementation of the New START
9 Treaty, including a description of any potential cost
10 savings, benefits, or risks resulting from such accelera
11 tion.
12 (6) Any other information the Secretary con
13 siders necessary.
14 (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.—Not later than
15 180 days after the date on which the plan is submitted
16 under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United
17 States shall submit to the congressional defense committees
18 a review of the plan.
19 (d) FORM.—The plan under subsection (a) and the re
20 view under subsection (c) shall be submitted in unclassified
21 form, but may include a classified annex.
22 (e) NEW START TREATY DEFINED.—In this section,
23 the term ‘‘New START Treaty’’ means the Treaty between
24 the United States of America and the Russian Federation
25 on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of
468
1 Strategic Offensive Arms, signed on April 8, 2010, and en
2 tered into force on February 5, 2011.
3 SEC. 1053. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE PLAN FOR THE MOD
4 ERNIZATION OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
5 STOCKPILE, NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX,
6 AND DELIVERY PLATFORMS.
470
1 (E) A detailed description of the steps taken
2 to implement the plan submitted in the previous
3 year.
4 (b) FORM.—The reports under subsection (a) shall be
5 submitted in unclassified form (including as much detail
6 as possible), but may include a classified annex.
7 (c) COVERED NUCLEAR SYSTEM DEFINED.—The term
8 ‘‘covered nuclear system’’ means the following:
9 (1) B–52H or B2 bomber aircraft and nuclear
10 air-launched cruise missiles.
11 (2) Trident ballistic missile submarines, launch
12 tubes, and Trident D–5 submarine-launched ballistic
13 missiles.
14 (3) Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic
15 missiles and associated silos.
16 (4) Nuclear warheads or gravity bombs that can
17 be delivered by the systems specified in paragraph
18 (1), (2), or (3).
19 (5) Nuclear weapons delivered by means other
20 than the systems specified in paragraph (1), (2), or
21 (3).
--------------------------------------
[Addendum 06/12/2011
It seems that within the Obama Administration there has been the Chinese Communists who in 2009 were winning out, as the raising of the Chinese flag on US park grounds across from the original intention of the White House South Lawn demonstrates to even the casual news viewer...
...but in 2010 following, the shift has once again gone back to Russian backed Communism, as those of Chinese preferences (like Van Jones and Anita Dunn) left their spheres of immediate Obama Administration influence, to achieve a greater peripheral damage. end of addendum]
A Heroine on the Horizon and the Social Security Number chink that can lead to a VOIDING OUT Obama's entire Presidency?
Orly Taitz http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=22383 wrote:
Chief judge of the U. S. district court in the District of Columbia, Royce Lamberth, issued his scheduling order on June 1st. What is important, that it says, that the FOIA cases are exempt from the initial meet and confer, which means that there is no need for Rule 26 conference, so the discovery is on, which means, that the deposition of the White House Counsel regarding Obama’s fraudulent use of the Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 and his use of the forged birth certificate, can go on.
Robert Bauer could get deposed.
Typically the White House gets an early warning of what is going on in courts, particularly in the DC courts. I wonder, if the White House Counsel Robert Bauer got information from one of the clerks, that the case will go on, which prompted his resignation the next day, on June the second. The clerks held on to this order and filed the June 1 order by judge Lamberth 2 days later, on June the 3rd. ...."
Obama's fraudulent SS number gives Taitz legal standing to subpoena and depose (i.e., discovery"). For 3 years, Obama has refused to offer up proof of eligibility to the US Constitution's Presidency requirements in Article 2.1.5, per 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653.
Obama, under the as yet unenforced law, needs to be able to prove in a Court of Law he is a US Natural Born Citizen, which he can't nor can ever do, because he isn't and never was.
Obama, under the as yet unenforced law, needs to be able to prove in a Court of Law he is a US Natural Born Citizen, which he can't nor can ever do, because he isn't and never was.
As of June 2011, Obama still will NOT allow his Social Security and Long Form COLB documents to be submitted into a Court of Law Record, even after nearly 3 years of challenges because they are so impeachable, they might as well be miniaturized into prizes in a box of Cracker Jacks.
Susan Daniels, Private Investigator, was radio interviewed on her investigation into Barack Obama's Identity Theft /Stolen Social Security Number from a Connecticut Senior Citizen over 30 years ago which he has used for most of the 30 plus years since.
But getting back to HR 1540.
Under Section 1052 (on page 465) of HR 1540 (reported 112-78), on December 12, 2011, the Military leadership will meet and discuss how to implement Obama's START Treaty of how to reduce the US from 5,000 nukes (p. 473 -- under section 1055) to an approximate strength of 750 or less nukes over the next 10 years or less.
OBAMA START TREATY - Reduction to 1550 is defacto far, far less.
P. 4
Article III
1. For the purposes of counting toward the aggregate limit provided for in subparagraph l(a) of Article I1 of this Treaty:
(a) Each deployed ICBM shall be counted as one.
(b) Each deployed SLBM shall be counted as one.
(c) Each deployed heavy bomber shall be counted as one.
2. For the purposes of counting toward the aggregate limit provided for in subparagraph l(b) of Article II of this Treaty:
(a) For ICBMs and SLBMs, the number of warheads shall be the number of reentry vehicles emplaced on deployed ICBMs and on deployed SLBMs.
(b) One nuclear warhead shall be counted for each deployed heavy bomber.
3. For the purposes of counting toward the aggregate limit provided for in subparagraph l(c) of Article I1 of this Treaty:
(a) Each deployed launcher of ICBMs shall be counted as one. [the language without specific clarification, based on 2b above, infers as one nuclear warhead].
(b) Each non-deployed launcher of ICBMs shall be counted as one. [the language without specific clarification based on 2b above, infers as one nuclear warhead].
(c) Each deployed launcher of SLBMs shall be counted as one. [the language without specific clarification based on 2 b above, infers as one nuclear warhead].
(d) Each non-deployed launcher of SLBMs shall be counted as one. [the language without specific clarification, infers as one nuclear warhead].
p. 6
referring to Article III, reads:
6. ICBMs, SLBMs, ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy
bombers shall cease to be subject to this Treaty in accordance
with Parts Three and Four of the Protocol to this Treaty.
ICBMs or SLBMs of an existing type shall cease to be subject
to this Treaty if all ICBM or SLBM launchers of a type
intended for such ICBMs or SLBMs have been eliminated or
converted in accordance with Part Three of the Protocol to
this Treaty.
Just how many will Obama reduce the US to? Technically, he can reduce the US to just 1 or 2 nuke(s) under the Treaty? Think I'm kidding?
In other words, the Russians are given a free hand to interpret this as NOT being subject to limit the “ICBMs, SLBMs, ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy Bombers” that were earlier being counted by the Treaty, in order to reduce the US to a combined number of 700 + 100 deployable missiles and delivery systems with a max number of 750 warheads under the Obama Treaty, because the delivery systems themselves (even WITHOUT nuclear warheads) are counted as if they were nuclear warheads by the language of this treaty.
In Naval Sub Application, one nuclear sub and 8 missiles with 3 war heads each counts as 41 under the Treaty: the 8 launchers, the 8 missiles themselves, the 24 warheads themselves, and the submarine are counted. 240 Navy SLBM Nuke warheads from 10 US Submarines are therefore counted as 410 warheads. The max number of 750 warheads, plus the 10 subs (the addition being the launcher compensation) and minus 170 , now creates a US Force of 590 actual nukes to defend ourselves with...maybe. An excess of deployed and non-deployed launchers and heavy bombers could possibly reduce the entire defense of the US to as few as 144 nukes as assigned to 6 US Submarines under Obama, with no sub commander access to the launch codes in case of a first strike . (Something Clinton made sure of in Presidential Decision Directive 60).
However, both conceivably and technically, all Obama need do is count 1548 or 1549 nuclear "capable" launchers, bombers, subs, ships...including those mothballed, and just keep one or two nukes, and he would abide by the Treaty which technically UNILATERALLY strips the United States, and (I say) leaves Russia intact.
The more Obama strips the US of its nukes, the greater the likelihood of a US Nuclear annihilation at the hands of its enemies. Only a voiding of his illegal Presidency via the COLB and SS number issue will undo the damage he has intentionally already done and still seeks to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment