Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Will ACLU Take the NDAA Bull by the Horns, or Just Milk the Cow?

Posted 10 years ago on Jan. 5, 2012, 6:50 a.m. EST by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This week the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) set up a new NDAA pledge page that reads as follows:

"He signed it. We'll fight it.

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.

The dangerous new law can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. He signed it. Now, we have to fight it wherever we can and for as long as it takes.

Sign the ACLU's pledge to fight worldwide indefinite detention for as long as it takes."


I have not signed it ... yet. I suspect that once I do, I'll start receiving an indefinite stream of donation requests, all assuring me the money will go to fight the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA. I suspect that the ACLU may be gearing up to milk the NDAA issue for donations just as they have the USA Patriot Act, which a decade after passage and despite their efforts is still on the books:


I don't mind the ACLU milking issues so long as they're actually making a difference on those issues. But I don't see that their efforts made much of a difference with respect to the Patriot Act. And when I asked them yesterday "What, specifically, is the ACLU going to do to defeat the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012?" their answer was this:

"We are extremely active on this issue and are strategizing our best options in moving forward."

I find that answer very disappointing. The ACLU had more than enough time to "strategize" about NDAA before Obama signed it, and they should have been ready to spring into action once he did. I have recommended an effective course of action for the ACLU, which includes charging Barack Hussein Obama and all of the U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for NDAA 2012 with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384:


Whether they follow that recommendation or not, whatever the ACLU intends to do about NDAA they better do quick. And if they want my support, they better be doing a helluva lot more than just building donor lists from online petition drives that otherwise accomplish nothing:



IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

Related Image:


CYBERACTIVIST ALERT: Emails like this one are being blocked by Network Solutions and other ISPs using Cloudmark Authority and probably other Internet censorship systems euphemistically referred to as "spam filters". Sadly, those who most need to see this warning never will...



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

The ACLU knows exactly what time it is and the score. Don't hold your breath waiting from them to bust us all out of the scheme.

conspiracy theory?



"The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not. "

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 10 years ago

I hate to embarass you but what you posted is BS conspiracy theory:



All this Act did is set up the District of Columbia.


[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Read what is to be found in the library of congress, all of it pertaining to this matter.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 10 years ago

What do you think "loc.gov" is?!? I posted a link to the actual legislation!



[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

that's far from all there is to be read on the subject

go to the library of congress, it's different


chase some of these down from 1933 and do note .gov moved UCC a few times since

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 10 years ago

Again, genius, "loc.gov" IS the Library of Congress! All you had to do was click the frigging link. What you are suggesting is not even conspiracy theory: It's simply people who are too dumb or too lazy to read legislation and other legal documents that would rather make up shit than admit they let somebody make an ass out of them.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

bruce, there is more to be found

I did read it and follow the link, it displays differently than when going through this one.


I'll admit, scotus rulings after the 30's have more contradictions than the bible, but, the documents are in the library and when have you ever known congress to pass anything as simple as just one page. There is more to the trail than one mere page.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 10 years ago

I have better things to do than continue this pointless exchange. I hope you do too...

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Which one she asks.... and he answers, "the Original One"'


The act in itself does not reflect the debt or who held the note at that time and continues to hold it. Don't be the dumb and lazy you are accusing me of being. Obama knows, so do many, many others.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Bruce, how much money did the United States owe, and to whom, in 1871? What were the terms of the payments?

How much money did the United States owe, and to whom, in 1933? What were the terms at that time once the debt was reorganized?

Why did FDR order Americans to turn in all their gold? What happened with America's gold reserves during this time? Why?

[-] 1 points by grimwomyn (35) from New York, NY 10 years ago

hell yeah, I would have capped it, but the site told me to turn off the bloody caps lock, thanks, humorless internet ;)

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 10 years ago

Who made the ACLU the designated caretakers of the Constitution? How can we take that task away from them. They are incompetent.