Titor's 2001 Predictions Compared to 2011 Curent Time

[titorite]

Anyone wanna join me on a march to washington to arrest and detain and put on trial every congressman and the president that signed this bill on the charges of treason against the republic?

 

[Samstwitch]

Obama has now said he will pass the indefinite detention act authorizing the incarceration of US citizens with out charges , with out trials, with out legal counsel.

I remember a portion in the Titor story. About his dad choosing to leave for the country side after his neighbor was taken away in the middle of the night with out reason.

We have entered the civil war. The US government has declared all of you and me potential enemy combatants. this sucks.

This is NAZISM! This is what happened when Hitler exterminated the Jews.

Obama to Sign Indefinite Detention Bill: Obama’s Trail of Broken Promises ​

COMMENTARY - December 16, 2011: President Barack Obama's staff has indicated he will sign the indefinite detention bill into law. The bill, called National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the Fiscal Year 2012, has provisions that explicitly spell out the authority of the U.S. President to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or supporting terrorists.​

This law completely bypasses the rights (like due process) promised to citizens in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Obama administration, which previously threatened to veto the bill, now supports the bill reportedly because of slight tweaks to it. However, these tweaks do not really change the provisions that codify the indefinite detention of Americans.​

"I'm not all that surprised; this president has a nasty habit of giving in to political pressure," wrote New York Times editor Andrew Rosenthal. The White House, in its defense, never specifically promised to object to the provision that codifies the indefinite detention of Americans. In fact, it complained that earlier versions of the bill would "disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism."​

Still, Obama broke his promises in principle. While campaigning in 2007, he said "as president, I will close Guantanamo." As president-elect, he reiterated his promise to close it and said he will set up procedures "that abide by our Constitution.​

Obama has not closed Guantanamo. Not vetoing the indefinite detention bill, of course, flies in the face of the constitutional principles he claimed to respect.​

Back in 2007, Obama said he was "a strong supporter of net neutrality."​

In 2010, his administration's performance on the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) net neutrality rule was mixed at best. It remains to be seen what Obama will do if Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) reaches his desk.​

Also back in 2007, Obama said he was against "illegal wiretapping of American citizens." "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are," he said. His record as the President on warrantless wiretaps, however, is highly questionable.​

To be fair, even though Obama made the promises above, he never cast himself as a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution (ironically, he was a constitutional law professor before he entered politics) and a protector of personal liberties. Instead, he painted himself as the candidate who will put an end to the legalized cesspool of corruption (i.e. the influence of lobbying money) and playground of bickering (i.e. deep divisions between the Democrats and Republicans) that is Washington. Alarmingly, Obama has failed miserably in these regards.​

According to fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com, he broke his promises to:​

- Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters​

- Create a public "Contracts and Influence" database​

- Create tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials​

His long trail of broken promises is epitomized in his behavior with the health care reform bill in 2010. During the final negations of the bill, he met with Democratic lawmakers behind closed door and pushed it through. This explicitly breaks his campaign promise of broadcasting all health care negotiations on C-SPAN and working with Republicans in a spirit of bipartisanship.​

​

Ever since the Democrats lost their supermajority in Senate early in 2010, the Republicans have noticeably resorted to what many consider to be childish and abusive tactics. However, one must remember that when Obama and his Democrats were in control, they abused the Republicans and steamrolled over them by cramming the unpopular, extreme health care reform bill down the throats of the Republicans and the American people.​

When Obama was elected, he had an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and the popular support of the American people. If there ever was a time when a president could tackle Congress' corruption and unite the country, Obama's landslide victory in 2008 was it.​

Obama, unfortunately, failed miserably and then some.​

In 2011, he has noticeably lost his moral authority; polls have consistently shown that young voters and independents have abandoned him in favor of Ron Paul. Young voters are still idealistic. Independents are disillusioned with the Democratic and Republican party. Both are sick of the Washington establishment. In 2008, they thought Obama was the answer. In 2012, many of them will turn to Congressman Paul. Paul, for decades, has cast himself as a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution and civil liberties. His personal life and legislative work back up his image. For the record, Paul is against SOPA, against indefinite detention of Americans and free from the corrupting influence of big money.​

Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/268...e-detention-obama-s-trail-broken-promises.htm​

 

[Samstwitch]

Anyone wanna join me on a march to washington to arrest and detain and put on trial every congressman and the president that signed this bill on the charges of treason against the republic?

I would if I could, for sure! You should talk to the Occupiers #OWS about this. Seems like they would be very interested in this. That's what they're all about. We need a civil war in America, against the federal government, just like John Titor said.

Do you have a Twitter profile? That's the easiest way to get hooked up with Occupiers. I follow many of their groups around the country.

 

[titorite]

Nobody sane and realistic wants a civil war Sam. Things just are what they are. We the People , did not declare this war. The empire did. They labeled us potential enemy combatants not worthy of constitutional rights. In essence , their is no constitution anymore. For the time being it is suspended. Martial law is the law of the land. Disobey the guy (or gal) with the gun at your own peril....obey them at your own peril.

As I see it, we have one moment. One chance to stop this. It is right now. And all of us, We as concerned intelligent citizens can stop it right now....or.... we can spend the next 4 years attempting to stop it till N day comes. And in N day no city is safe. And that sucks too... I thought my small town of 100thousand might be off the radar... but no... every single city is a target. Only towns with populations less than 1,000 are non targets. The rural areas.

I never wanted to see this.

It is why I stopped doing my work years ago.

And it still happened , it is here. This is the end. The literal end.

The constitution no longer applies to americans. That means it is void in full.

Our government has declared war on us.

They get things wrong , warrants raid wrong houses, innocent people die. Law enforcement gets it wrong on a retinue basis these days. just look at injustice everywhere http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/

Many many innocents will end up in a concentration camps.

Just like Titor said.

Fuck.

 

[Samstwitch]

It has already begun around the country. The U.S. government declared war on Americans when they approved the [Un] Patriot Act, and all that followed. Now this 'Indefinite Detention Bill' against Americans...this is exactly how Hitler exterminated the Jews.

The people must rise up and protest! According to the Declaration of Independance, it is our duty! The Sheeple are now waking up with the Occupy Movement, but it is not enough, because the U.S. federal government has become too powerful. We must have huge numbers of peaceful protestors march on Washington to make a difference.

AMERICANS: Our ‘right’ and ‘duty’ to throw off unjust government

The Declaration of Independence states that our government derives its just – or lawful – powers from the “consent of the governed.” The underlying principle implied in the Declaration was that “We the People” are the true and rightful government of the United States, and as Abraham Lincoln declared in his Gettysburg Address, “government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth.” Elected and appointed officials are managers selected to work on our behalf in order to accomplish our collective will. We do not, however, elect them to dictate what our will is, or should be.​

However, in the event that our government becomes one consisting of rulers rather than representatives, our government determined over 200 years ago what our course of action should be.​

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to the Second Continental Congress proposing that the thirteen American colonies declare independence from Great Britain. After they consulted with their respective colonies, Congress approved the resolution on July 2. The wording was not approved until two days later, when 56 American patriots would sign “the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” more commonly known as the Declaration of Independence.​

The Declaration’s authors listed numerous grievances perpetrated by Britain’s King George III: abolishing the colonies’ laws and representative houses, depriving colonists of their right to trial by jury, trying colonists in overseas kangaroo courts for phony charges, imposing taxes without consent, inciting insurgencies against the colonists, conducting mock trials on British troops charged with murdering colonists, forcing American prisoners to fight against other Americans, and for declaring war on the colonies – the Revolutionary War began fourteen months before Lee introduced his resolution.​

But these “repeated injuries and usurpations” were all symptoms of a much larger disease. The founding fathers didn’t declare independence from mock trials and taxation without representation. King George had established “absolute Tyranny” over the colonies, and that tyranny is what drove America to declaring independence.​

The Declaration not only absolved our ties with the tyrannical ruler of Great Britain, the document also established individual rights that no man or government could encroach upon:​

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”​

Although our Constitution would not be ratified for another twelve years, the foundations had been laid for a people that – in theory – would no longer suffer under tyranny. Government could no more intrude on our unalienable rights than could an armed citizen walk into the Oval Office of the White House.​

But has today’s Federal government alienated American citizens from our unalienable rights? It is a sad truth that throughout human history, tyrants have used a mire of endless minutiae to obscure corrupt and manipulative power plays. The current state of political maneuvering seems to reflect this ongoing historic trend.​

How much of Washington’s activity is “just” when you consider that Article Ten of the Bill of Rights states that the Federal government only has the power to do what is enumerated in the Constitution. It is telling to mention that a bill has been introduced in each Congress since 1995, stating only that Congress cite where the Constitution grants them the enumerated power to enact each piece of legislation. Rather than leaving the American people to wonder if any legislation was constitutional, we could see the article, section, and clause that grants Congress the authority. As simple and necessary as that sounds, no session of Congress has allowed that bill to reach a vote. If Congress was operating within their authority, wouldn’t it make sense that they would want to prove that they were doing so?​

While our elected officials haven’t necessarily “plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, [or] burnt our towns,” at least in an overt sense, they have repeatedly gone against the will of the people. A great number of Americans have expressed opposition to much of our government’s agenda, which indicates that they no longer have the “consent” of a considerable percentage of the “governed.”​

In the event that Americans find themselves at odds with their government, the Declaration tells us:​

“... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”​

Unfortunately for the signers of the Declaration, King George most certainly did not see declaring independence as a right. Elitists almost never recognize the legitimate rights of others. But according to our nation’s own foundational text, we now have that right:​

“... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”​

Our government has not yet driven us to “absolute Despotism,” but recent trends indicate that we could be headed in that direction. Additionally, an orchestrated and deliberate propaganda campaign is underway, aimed at squelching any opposition: those who take a stand in favor of the Constitution, limited government, and the principles listed in the Declaration and Constitution are being labeled as “extremists.” If supporters of the government’s founding principles are considered extremists, then what does that make the government?​

We certainly have not have reached the point of revolution yet, but we can “overthrow” the government – although on a smaller scale – at the voting booth. Will November’s elections prove enough to return Washington to a government “of the people by the people and for the people?” We shall see.​

In the movie The Patriot, the fictional character Benjamin Martin stated: “Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.” Many real American patriots probably expressed that same sentiment – a sentiment that could prove true for modern-day Americans in coming months. Over 200 years after the colonies declared independence from King George’s tyranny, the United States has slowly devolved into a government that has in some ways has begun to resemble his rule. It appears that tyrants come in many guises.​

In summary, if our government chooses to violate our unalienable rights; if our government chooses to pass unjust laws, contrary to the consent of the governed; if our government chooses to take despotic actions that reduce us to servitude of the government, or some political agenda – then we have a right and a duty according to the Declaration of Independence to “throw off such Government.” Because regardless whether it comes from one tyrant in London or 3,000 tyrants in Washington, D.C., tyranny – in all its forms – must be passionately fought until it is defeated.​

 

[titorite]

Have you found a rife machine yet?

God knows I can help you find a proper one... and it sounds like you need one.

You do Sam. I will help... if you want it.

 

[Samstwitch]

Have you found a rife machine yet?

God knows I can help you find a proper one... and it sounds like you need one.

You do Sam. I will help... if you want it.

I'm not familiar with a rife machine. What do you mean..."it sounds like you need one"? ...Not the place for this discussion though. Perhaps in a private 'Conversation'?

 

[TimeNot_0]

Attention, attention. It is Marshall Law not Martial Law. And anyway, don't read more into it than what it is. Titor said (if you follow his advise) to avoid it, and avoid either side. As I see it, it makes the Country look more unstable and to the rest of the world, that may become a bigger problem. Of course they will say that the world is unstable anyway because of their leaders.
I wonder why the road seems to go down to Hell all of a sudden or was it a slippery slope or did some Demigod state to jump off of the cliff or something. Glad I missed it, and hope to miss all of it!

 

[Peregrini]

Attention, attention. It is Marshall Law not Martial Law. And anyway, don't read more into it than what it is. Titor said (if you follow his advise) to avoid it, and avoid either side. As I see it, it makes the Country look more unstable and to the rest of the world, that may become a bigger problem. Of course they will say that the world is unstable anyway because of their leaders.
I wonder why the road seems to go down to Hell all of a sudden or was it a slippery slope or did some Demigod state to jump off of the cliff or something. Glad I missed it, and hope to miss all of it!

What???

Marshall Law is an Chinese-American fighter who has appeared on every Tekken game, apart from Tekken 3 and Tekken Tag Tournament

The John Marshall Law School, an ABA accredited law school in the Chicago Illinois

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.

 

[Liberty]

Posted by John Titor on 03-01-2001 11:31 AM

BOB (from 18):

I must preface the following with a bit of melodrama. I feel a bit unqualified to answer the next few questions for the following reason. The way you and I look at life and death and its relative value is radically different. As any other soldier can tell you, once you watch a man’s arm come off from a bullet you just fired or have been close enough to feel someone’s last breath on your face, it changes you. I can only describe it in two distinct waves. The first feeling is power. You won when it counted and survived. All the personal shortcomings and faults you’ve carried with you your whole life just melt away in a savage euphoria. If there’s time to think about it, the next wave comes shortly after and is underlined by overwelming guilt. You just killed someone and now God might be ticked off. Fortunately, the second feeling goes away quickly when the shooting starts again and gets shorter and shorter after every battle. After all, why would God put you in this situation? The point is, I personally do not like going through that cycle and the decisions I make about life and death might not be the ones you would expect me to make.

That is an example of close fighting! Don't you think the next move will be with police and national guard? I'm not that worried because I know they FAIL! The American Militia movement and the citizens now know they have nothing to loose in a fight but your life. Titor said this would be no surprize. The anounced the Defence Authorization Act with pride! (Revel in your confidence today. You won't have tommorow!)