Through The Static

September 28, 2008

Are We Under Martial Law?

Filed under: Government,Politics,WTF — bobbleheadedbob @ 9:26 pm

Did Pelosi declare martial law?

Listen very, very carefully.  1:22, “I understand we are under martial law, as declared by the speaker last night.”

Longer C-span Clip

At about 20:50 Rep.Burgess confirms the speaker declared martial law last night.   And listen to the question at 42:22, if you so desireth.

I leave you in peace, and, hopefully, not in pieces.



  1. That’s really weird…I just saw the shorter clip you posted, and I’ve barely been keeping up with news the last couple of days, but I am pretty sure we’re not under martial law. At least not at the moment. Maybe if had been following the news I’d understand more of the context of why that guy said we’re under martial law. Martial law, I think, is one of those things where you’d be quite aware if you were under it. But maybe the speaker announced it, and it will be taking effect? Although I doubt that too, cuz it should be all over the NY Times or other news sites. Hmm, if I had wires, they would be frazzling like yours right about now.

    Comment by disciplepete — September 28, 2008 @ 10:17 pm | Reply

  2. Whether he was speaking in metaphor in regard’s to Pelosi’s statement/declaration or he was speaking a fact that has yet to be reported to mainstream media, I do find it alarming nonetheless.

    Martial law – metaphor or not – if this is the way in which the Congress is operating at the moment does paint a dire picture indeed that reverberates on a national level.

    Eeep. Eeeeeep~!

    P.S. Just because it hasn’t been reported by CNN doesn’t mean it did not happen or is not in the works – as evidenced by the WMD sturf and countless other instances of things that aren’t reported by most mainstream news outlets – like the disintegration of the borders between the US and Canada and Mexica, forming a North American entity and paving the way for the Amero. YES, there is information on it, but it’s hardly been mentioned at all or more than 1-2 minutes on any major news outlets.

    P.P.S. Or HR 1955

    P.P.S. There is a smiley down and to the left of the comment box. Random weirdness.

    Comment by bobbleheadedbob — September 28, 2008 @ 10:42 pm | Reply


    Seriously, the video issues are driving me nuts. We should move to blogspot.

    Here are the unglorified links:


    North American Union by 2010:

    HR 1955:

    Comment by bobbleheadedbob — September 28, 2008 @ 10:44 pm | Reply

  4. Ya, I hope you didn’t interpret me as thinking that something is only real if it’s on CNN, trust me, I don’t believe that. It would hardly be possible to characterize my beliefs about the mainstream media more incorrectly. That said, if Nancy Pelosi or President Bush say something as important as the declaration of martial law and politicians are talking about it and it’s broadcast on CSPAN, I can’t possibly fathom why it wouldn’t be picked up by mainstream news outlets immediately. If this martial law declaration was meant to be hidden from us, it wouldn’t be on CSPAN, believe me.

    And undercover, secretive martial law seems almost like an oxymoron…I’m by no means an expert on the topic, but martial law always struck me as one of those things where the govt. declares an emergency, and everybody and their mama understands very quickly that the military now runs the show.

    But yeah, these are just my first impressions, I really don’t know what the deal is…keep us posted, u intrepid cyborg!!

    Comment by disciplepete — September 29, 2008 @ 12:36 am | Reply

  5. Oh, videos…I’m about to try my hand at posting some right now…

    Comment by disciplepete — September 29, 2008 @ 12:38 am | Reply

  6. Oh, just wanted to comment on one more thing…

    ” countless other instances of things that aren’t reported by most mainstream news outlets – like the disintegration of the borders between the US and Canada and Mexica”

    You should watch Lou Dobbs on CNN…he actually rants about that on the regular!! Actually, he’s just funny to watch, I’m not suggesting u watch it for educational purposes. But that whole North American Union thing is one of his usual rants, along with “illegal alien Mexican drug smugglers” (those words are inseparable for Lou). It’s really just fun to watch this old dude fly off into rages for an hour or 2 or however long his show is, it might be fun to watch intoxicated. Oh, but even tho he’s enraged, he’s nowhere near Bill O’Reilly obnoxiousness, he’s far more intelligent than O’Reilly (tho that’s not saying much), and I think a more decent human being, altho I’m not down with his anti-illegal alien hysteria.

    Comment by disciplepete — September 29, 2008 @ 12:49 am | Reply

  7. There’s an example. Lou Dobbs is one of the few people who regularly “rants” about it. And because it’s a “rant” – most people don’t listen. But until he picked up the story – and even shortly after – it isn’t considered what happened. Bush has called it a conspiracy, Obama has said on the campaign trail that there is no evidence that it is happening.

    I suppose my larger question – and it’s not directed directly at you, but to anyone reading this – is when is news considered real? When do we decide, “Oh, it’s not hearsay”? Or, “that was probably taken out of context.”

    A related point to that, is we’re just as much in the dark with the news on some pretty intense topics as we are without the news – and when I say news, I mean pomp-and-circumstance-presentation on major news outlets.

    And yeah, even though Lou Dobbs rails against it, is it real news? Most people I talk to have no idea what the North American Union is and Obama is implying it’s a conspiracy, that it doesn’t exist. He’s also saying he has no idea if he’s a formal member on the Council of Foreign Relations when in fact he’s an active member.

    Who do we believe?

    Why do we choose who to believe?

    If there is an odd slip where a member of the house mentions that the speaker declared martial law – unless it is broadcast with pomp and circumstance, it isn’t of any of our concern? I’m not telling people what they should be doing or should not be doing because that would be telling people to operate under the sovereignty of my viewpoint. But I am voicing a concern that brings me to a larger question – why wait? Why decide not to pay attention until someone else tells us to?

    To be honest – ironically enough, since I write on this blog – I don’t watch the news in general. And there’s so much going on, I can’t possibly keep up with everything. But when something strikes me as alarming, I think it’d be irresponsible of me, for myself, to not pay attention to it, ask questions and be concerned.

    The NAU is very real – and I doubt Obama’s thinks it’s a conspiracy, just like Bush has announced it to be a conspiracy. (even though he helped create it)

    What does this mean, a dissolution of borders, without even bringing the issue to the American public? A loss of sovereignty. When America loses its sovereignty what happens to the delicate fragility of American civil liberties? It’s a huge expansion of government…among other disturbing implications. <– check it out, even though it’s full of “don’t be scared”s and “it’s nothing to worry about”

    Isn’t it possible that major news outlets deliberately edit out important pieces of information and disseminate them at opportune times? Isn’t it possible that sometimes they act in concert with the larger desires of government or the presidency, especially in times of crises? Isn’t it possible that maybe they’ll address it topically in the form of a “rant” or a “rave” by a loud or obnoxious personality – so that the larger public perception can be molded into not taking it seriously?

    Maybe someone doesn’t like a pundit or a reporter or commentator for racist or homophobic tendencies. But I think one should still be discerning. A fact is a fact. A concern is a concern. The politics is just the framing of it.

    Call it paranoia, but I’d rather be paranoid than ill-informed, un-informed and uni-formed.

    What does it take for us to take something seriously? Must someone with credentials take it seriously first? Do we need a story to be pre-approved by someone we trust as a news source? Ok, then what determines that trust? What happens when most of our diet is based upon factory-processed, prepackaged news?

    Hysteria is an affect. But it doesn’t mean that it is or isn’t based upon fact. So, if something piques my interest, I’m gonna bookmark it, I’m gonna put it out there and I’m gonna pay attention.

    Comment by bobbleheadedbob — September 29, 2008 @ 5:46 am | Reply

  8. Thats great,, I am impressed…

    Comment by Eti Sharma — March 31, 2011 @ 2:46 am | Reply

  9. S0pw0V

    Comment by frenky — May 7, 2011 @ 8:51 pm | Reply

  10. i’m fine good work real asian preteens =]

    Comment by Qfhjyzfj — September 5, 2011 @ 5:07 am | Reply

  11. We’d like to invite you for an interview underage porn videos

    Comment by Thpctfco — September 7, 2011 @ 8:33 am | Reply

  12. I’d like to open a business account Nn Galleries

    Comment by Gekqbqgf — September 27, 2011 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: