GOP debate on 11/22/11 shows that Mitt Romney knew the plan before Senate!

[Dig]

Here you go...

December 17th the Senate got it from the house for review...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ383/content-detail.html
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
Dec. 17, considered and passed House.
Dec. 22, considered and passed Senate, amended. House
concurred in Senate amendments.
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2011):
Jan. 7, Presidential statement.
Now how does Mitt Romney know exactl the issue regarding using a dual system of justice...one regarding 'innocent until proven guilty' and another one for Raytheon/Rothschild/Halliburton/GE/Rockefeller where anyone can be called 'a threat to the US' (just like the jews were a threat in nazi germany or the 'old-thinkers' were a threat to maoist cina or the capitalists were a threat to stalinist russie). Now entire profiles of peoples can be considered a threat beyond our constitutional sstem of justice and Romney parrots the same exact false narrative and mythology pushed with this unconstitutional and illegal piece of fake legislation.

Carefully listen to Mitt Romney's words on 11/22/11 (weeks before the Senate looked at the bullshit and illegal toilet paper 'bill'). Look at how he defends the illegal and treasonous act of TSA's raping of babies, children, and grandmothers by grabbing people's penises, sticking fingers up women's vaginas, squeezing women's breasts, sticking figers up girls, boys, womens, and mens' anuses, etc:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/22/se.02.html

BLITZER: I'm going to give everyone a chance to respond, but let me get this one question from CNN Politics, that came to cnnpolitics.com, and then we'll bring in the rest of you. This was the question: "TSA pat-downs: violation of civil liberty or a necessity to ensure national security?" Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Well, we can do a lot better than the TSA system. It's going to get get better over time. We can use better technology. We can also identify people who are lower risk and allow them to go through the process more quickly than the current process.

But let's come back to the issue that seems to be so confusing here.

And that is Congressman Paul talked about crime. Newt Gingrich was right. There are different categories here. There's crime and there are rights that are afforded to American citizens under our Constitution and those that are accused of crime. Then there's war. And the tool of war being used today in America and around the world is terror. There's a different body of law that relates to war.

And for those that understand the difference between the two, they recognize that we need tools when war is waged domestically to ensure that, as president of the United States, you can fulfill your first responsibility, which is to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens and defend them from foes domestic and foreign.

And that means, yes, we'll use the Constitution and criminal law for those people who commit crimes, but those who commit war and attack the United States and pursue treason of various kinds, we will use instead a very different form of law, which is the law afforded to those who are fighting America.

that we need tools when war is waged domestically to ensure that as president of the United States you can fulfill your first responsibility which is to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens and defend them from foes domestic and foreign. That means yes we'll use the constitution and criminal law for those people who commit crimes but those who commit war and attack the United States and pursue treason of various kinds we will use instead a very different form of law which is the law afforded to those who are fighting America.
THAT IS CORRECT, MITT ROMNEY IS SAYING THAT WE THROW OUT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW DOMESTICALLY WHENEVER BILDERBERGERS, KISSINGER, BRZEZINSKI, ROCKEFELLER SAYS SO AND IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME MYTHOLOGY AND NARRATIVE PUSHED IN THE ILLEGAL AND TOTAL HORSE SHIT 'BILL' JUST SIGNED BY THE PUPPET BRITISH AGENT BARRY SOETORO. BY THE WAY, HE NEVER DESCRIBES THIS KIND OF LAW THAT IS TREASONOUS IN ITSELF BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION. HE JUST PULLS THIS SHIT OUT OF HIS ASS AND SAS 'WE HAVE A DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION LAW THAT I DO NOT HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT WHICH MAY INCLUDE RAPING YOUR CHILDREN (AS THE TSA DO), FALSE FLAG NUKES (AS NEWT GINGRICH IS PUSHING FOR), OR ENDING HUMANITY ITSELF IN FAVOR OF DOWNLOADABLE MEMORIES (AS BILDERBERG EUGENECISTS ARE PUSHING FOR)."

[Dig]

Ron Paul Forums  on the ball wit this one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?332193-Romney-Need-a-quot-very-different-form-of-law-quot-when-dealing-with-domestic-terrorism

[stymo1]

Shit. This is beyond ramming speed. This is warp speed. There is so much happening at once it is hard to keep up with. Book marked to follow.

[Dig]

Here is Ron Paul's response, clear and to the point...


BLITZER: Congressman Paul?

PAUL: That's digging a hole for ourselves....

I think we're using too much carelessness in the use of words that we're at war. I don't remember voting on -- on a declared -- declaration of war. Oh, we're against terrorism.

(APPLAUSE)

And terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects.

And they have changed the -- in the -- in DOD budget they have changed the wording on the definition of al-Qaeda and Taliban. It's anybody associated with organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated so that makes all Americans vulnerable.

And now we know that American citizens are vulnerable to assassination.

So I would be very cautious about protecting the rule of law. It will be a sacrifice that you'll be sorry for.

(APPLAUSE)

[Dig]

Holy crap...FOX gets it...


Reality Check: The divide between Criminal Law and the War On Terror
http://www.fox19.com/story/16224162/reality-check-the-divide-between-criminal-law-and-the-war-on-terror
Posted: Thursday, December 8, 2011 10:43 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, December 8, 2011 10:52 PM EST
By Ben Swann

Wednesday night I told you how the opening question in the CNN National Security debate for the Republican candidates was focused around the Patriot Act.

As part of their answers to questions about the act, Republican candidates made clear that there is a divide between the war on terror and criminal law.

But is there?

Have you heard the adage that if you say something untrue, often enough, it will become true in the public's mind?

That may be happening with the Patriot Act.

According to former Governor Mitt Romney, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Patriot Act should be strengthened but American citizens need not fear because these powers extend only to terrorism.

"Again, very sharp division. Criminal law, the government should be frankly on defense and you're innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives."  said Gingrich during the debate.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul didn't agree.  He was alone in his stance that the Patriot Act steps on the Constitution.

"This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child- beating and wife-beating. you can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don't do it so carelessly."  said Congressman Paul.

But is it Congressman Paul who is confused here?

After all, listen to how Romney and Gingrich explain it.  The average American has nothing to worry about with the Patriot Act because criminal law and the War on Terror are two different things.

"Newt Gingrich was right there are different categories here.  There is crime.  And there are certain rights that are afforded to citizens and those that are accused of crime.  And then there is war.  And the tool of war that is being used today in America and around the world is terror.  There is a different body of law that relates to war."  said Governor Romney.

But that is not true.

It is a nice idea that U.S. citizens are still protected and measures in the Patriot Act that step on the 4th amendments protection against unlawful search and seizure, won't be used unless its against terrorists.

But the facts don't support it.

According to a 2009 report from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, in 2008 the Feds used 763 warrant-less wire taps, a direct violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution which protects against unlawful search and seizure.

It is a power granted to law enforcement under the Patriot Act.

But here is the kicker, 763 warrant-less wiretaps were used and only 3 of those cases involved suspected terrorism.  Only 3.

Furthermore, 65% of those cases were drug cases.

Here's what you need to know.

Lots of people out there may say, its ok that the Patriot Act was used in drug cases because you can show a correlation between drug activity and terrorism.

OK, but I can also show you a correlation between drug activity and violent crime, between violent crime and domestic violence, domestic violence and child neglect...

See where this goes?

Some Republican candidates may be trying to create a narrative of the war on terror being separate from criminal law and while it may be a good theory, in reality, it is simply not true.

The reality is, as far as the Patriot Act and law enforcement have been concerned, there is no divide between the War on Terror and criminal law.

And that is Reality Check.

[stymo1]

bump