Comment: The key clause is the one I have in quotes...

(See in situ)

The key clause is the one I have in quotes...

From the text of the bill (645) (edited):

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--

"(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."

There were 3 other clauses in front of this one which were semi-reasonable. They were #'s (1) through (3). I edited them out to highlight # (4), the one in quotes. This ((4)) is an open ended clause allowing the secretary of homeland security to use these centers in any manner he sees fit. This would include detention of prisoners of whatever type are determined to be confined there. Also, it says a minimum of 6. Also open ended. 6 at least but doesn't cap the total. They could set up hundreds of them under this bill.

One other thing that could happen. Many of the currently established fema camps are former military installations. They could just be declared "emergency centers" under this bill and be instantly legitimized. Any that aren't on military installations, could be retroactively labeled as "military installations" and again be legitimized. This could be a back-door way of introducing "rex84" to the American public and the sheeple would accept it under the guise of "homeland security" and "public safety." This bill is really bad.

Lately and usually, when someone panics over a bill and posts it on here, I go and read it and find that there really isn't much to it. Usually it's funding to study something, or a commission to investigate and make recommendations. Like the so-called "thought crimes bill." I was one of the first to declare that it wasn't in fact a thought crimes bill, merely a commission authorizing the study of radical thought. That bill was a bit concerning in that the outcome of the study could have lead to further damaging legislation, so my only concern was that it was a stepping stone and not "the hammer."

In this particular case though, I caught "the hammer" within 15 seconds of reading the bill. This is bad people. Like I said, I'm a skeptic normally of bills posted on here... skeptical because I actually go and read the legislation instead of listening to some chicken little screaming the sky is falling when it was just a sheet of paper a bill was printed on that hit him/her in the head. My skepticism vanished the second I read #4 above. Watch this one closely folks...Ensure this bill goes ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE. Find out the members of the committee it was submitted to and flood them with communication efforts. Speak to them in particular about clause #4 that I have highlighted above. The whole bill should die though, even if clause 4 is removed. Those sneaky "conference committee's" called to reconcile a house and senate version of a bill are where many damaging changes are slipped in with little time left for contacting members to vote it down. I've watched them for too long and I know how they operate. If the NWO crowd wants #4 in there when passed, it WILL be there.


Paul C. Hanson