Why REX 84?


 Suppose you demonstrate against our “Government Treason”

and are arrested for “Disturbing the Peace”,

or as the police call it, when they declare:

“This is an “Illegal Assembly” get lost or get arrested”

What do you think would happen if you were demonstrating

“Armed with Guns” in open sight?

What do you think the police would do?


Yet the First Amendment guaranteed you the right,

“to Peacefully Assemble to redress your government”?


2nd A well regulated Militia, being necessary

to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed.


Can our government lock us up for doing nothing?

They did once before in February 1942.

Executive Order 9066 to send American citizens of German, Italian, and Japanese ancestry,

taken from their homes and businesses and sent to Detention Centers. Legal?


In 9/11 2001, to protect us? The Terrorist Protection Act, to allow unlimited spying on citizens passed.


In 2007 a law was repealed, that prevented the US Military from taking over citizens in the United States.


In 2011 Obama passed a law, that allows unlimited detention of any citizen indefinitely, without any trial.


15 March 2012, Obama passed a new Executive Order, giving him the unbridled right to confiscate anything

in the nation, that “HE” wants, without any recourse or control by Congress.

This is an update on the earlier

Executive orders

passed back in the 1960’s.


Do we have to be armed to ensure our “right to assemble”

to confront our government?


It is getting so that’s the “only way” we can demonstrate, why?

To let our government do whatever they want.


In 1776 we faced the British with guns; we meant business to ensure our freedom from the British.


Do we have a right to face our leaders to demand restoration of our Freedom?

or  “REX 84”


REX 84, will explain Detention Camps

On MSNBC: Canceling your right to a trial.  Writ of Habeas corpus?


I want you to remember that in February 1942 we detained American citizens

of German, Italian or Oriental ancestry,

American citizens taken from their homes, business’s eliminated,

and sent them to Detention Centers, not prisons,

but with Barbed Wire and Gun towers were “to protect them”.


When did they build the camps to hold 120,000 citizens,

and aliens,

when it was only 3 months after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii?


These camps are now being refurbished, for future use?


It may be for all of us, if we dare confront our government again. “REX 84”.

On “Countdown” Keith Olbermann examined the:

Military Commission’s Act of 2006”

 and what it does to something called

“a writ of Habeas Corpus”.


A writ of Habeas Corpus, the right to a speedy trial,

"with a Jury".



You can be held Indefinitely: without trial.


The following is a transcript of Keith Olbermann's special report

on habeas corpus, as reported on Tuesday, October 10th:2007

The president has now succeeded where no one has before. 

Obama managed to kill the: Writ of Habeas Corpus. 


Tonight, a special investigation:

How that, in turn, kills nothing less than your Bill of Rights.

Because the Mark Foley story began to break on the night of September 28, 2007

exploding the following day,

many people may not have noticed

the bill passed by the Senate that night.


Congress passed the “Military Commissions Act of 2006”:

to give Mr. Bush the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies

—those who seek to harm the country. 

He has been very clear on whom he thinks that is.

That act sounds so innocent, doesn’t it?

You just wouldn’t think it had anything to do with you.


From Wikipedia.org: This ACT makes it possible for US citizens to be designated

an “unlawful enemy combatant”,

because: It could be read to include “anyone who has donated money

to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan”

that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban,

or” a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.


As such: a “writ of Habeas Corpus”

may be denied to US citizens,

Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree,

responds to the comment that “Habeas Corpus”

has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that,

using the current sweeping definition of war on terror and unlawful combatant,

it is impossible to know where the battlefield is and who combatants are.

Also, she notes that already most of the detentions are unlawful.


The Act also suggests that unlawful enemy combatant refers to

”any person” who, “Before, On, or After” the date

 of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006”,

has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant

 by a “Combatant Status Review Tribunal”,

or another competent tribunal

established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.


“Before, On, or After” sure covers a long time.


WHY has our government come up with:

“2005”Army Regulations 210-35, “Civilian Inmate Labor Program?” (See 1)


When an open dictatorship emerges, wholesale roundups of dissidents will occur.

U.S. Army Regulation 210-35, entitled

Civilian Inmate Labor Program,

already provides

Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and

civilian prison camps on Army installations.


Instructions for the Army to put civilians to work!

What Civilians?

Those detained by REX 84?

Those citizens detained, when we are under

“Martial Law”

enacted under the Executive Orders?


Halliburton confirms building Concentration Camps to hold detainees on the 17th February 2006

to the Council of Foreign Relations. 


Donald Rumsfeld feels the News media

is at fault

for reporting on the government,

so the Media must be stopped reporting.

You “MUST,” read this entire article.

>> See: Halliburton


Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that

if the President says you are an enemy combatant,

then you “effectively are”.

Habeas corpus


the right to confront your accuser

in a court of law "in a trial".

The right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.



Two provisions of the “MCA 2006”

have been criticized

for allegedly making it harder

to, prosecute and convict

officers and employees

of the U.S. government

for misconduct in office.

(Of course, what else would you expect)