I read this thread's beginning post, and it got me thinking...'hasn't there been a law to a somewhat similar effect for at least the last 30 years or so?'
And when I looked at the Wikipedia posting, there it was, right at the top:
"The National Defense Authorization Act is the name of a United States federal law that has been enacted for each of the past 48 fiscal years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense."
This isn't really anything new. They've been doing it for the last 48 years, in fact, which is only two years less than I've been alive, and similar legislation was used before that for the same purpose, all the way back to the first drafting of the constitution; it's been building up for the last 200+ years, ever since the clause about a 'well-ordered militia' was penned for a very small nation of less than 20 states, if memory serves. In other words, it's been around in a slowly-growing form for the next best thing to forever, in an america-centric sense.
That sounds less like a conspiracy to me, than a case of the perpetuation of the status quo -- which is not entirely a bad thing in my view.
it wouldn't be surprising to me if this bill is exactly what they are saying it is: the first step into a police state.
by the way, who is "they," exactly?
My two cents. YMMV.
Addendum: looking at the languge on the page surrounding the article in the Original Posting, it appears to be of German or Eastern European origin. I don't mean to disparage non-USA individuals, but I have to question the veracity of an obviously inflammatory article about american legislation written for a non-native newsservice.
And those bits about "Fema coffins" and the US being "the most secretive nation in the world"?who exactly said these things that you're alluding to? Do you have proof of their veracity? Why wouldn't the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have coffins, when they have to deal with thousands of dead from natural disasters (and other catastrophes) each year, and not only in the Continental US?
Far up toward the top of the list of reasons why that article raises little poor-veracity warning flags in my head is the fact that, as far as I was able to tell, the author didn't actually quote any of the Act itself, but engaged in a whole lot of telling us that it said this, or that, or this other thing, without offering any actual proof to support his or her allegations.