TA-THREATS: FBI Reports Suspicious Activity on Inauguration Route

For every president that has ever existed, there have been dissenters and people who hated these presidents.

A large part of the youth of America has always been against past presidents in the US, sometimes the amount of dissenters was bigger than at other times. What I am pretty sure of is that if you ask most of the young people who have joined groups like ANSWER INTERNATIONAL to tell you about the history of such groups, they have no idea of what groups sponsor them and the history of such groups. Many young people join mostly because of the rebellious nature of such groups against the government, but have no idea nor seem to care much about the true goals and the past of such groups.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Muaddib]

Ok, just delete my posts without explanation. Thanks.

Apparently, ATS is not in America?

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You want to be free enough that you can walk to him and yell and bash at him?

Yes, I believe that citizens should have access to the President and be allowed to tell him that they believe is doing a poor job as President. Any voicing of disagreement has come to be termed "bashing" by republican parrots such as yourself. This is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every American.
.

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
Well right now it is propsed to come out of the Homeland Security Grants D.C. has received over the last three years. I'm all for Him 'celebrating', but at the expense they are talking about, and situations around the world, Just as a 'PR' move, I would tail it back. Thats just me though..

I think we are in agreement here. Celebrate just keep it low key.
I personally think that "forcing" DC to foot the bill for the security is uncalled for. Somebody obviously has to pay for it, but DC has year round concerns. For them to whoop it up for one night on somebody elses tab is just wrong.

Originally posted by marg6043
Hey Muaddib I bet you and some others here in ATS have some VIP first row sits.

Remember not to the left and not eye contact either and by not means do not do any sudden movements Mr. Bush does not like that at all.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by marg6043]

Well, i have no first row seats, but I am pretty sure that Condolezza Rice and some other Republicans in my group will have a good laugh at your claim that Condolezza Rice was talking about starting WWIII in one of her speeches.

It would bring more than a few chuckles from everyone.

Hey Marg, watch out when the president goes to the bathroom for number 2, it's possible that it is one of your "conspiracies"...you know, his fart might destroy half of the US.....

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well, i have no first row seats, but I am pretty sure that Condolezza Rice and some other Republicans in my group will have a good laugh at your claim that Condolezza Rice was talking about starting WWIII in one of her speeches.

It would bring more than a few chuckles from everyone.

Hey Marg, watch out when the president goes to the bathroom for number 2, it's possible that it is one of your "conspiracies"...you know, his fart might destroy half of the US.....

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Muaddib]

Just admit it! You are actually Anne Coulter, aren't you?

No I don't think muaddib is Ann she's to white muaddib is Cuban he is Latino we have skin color.

But he sure talks like her. Muaddib a die hard bush follower.

He will do well in his NWO. Better Bush than Castro ha muaddib.

Now back to bush coronation and inauguration extravaganza, yeah people should be able to tell him in his face what kind of man he really is.

Now I agree that he wants to accomplish in splendor what his father never did a second inauguration, but is something he will never be able to measure and that is the success of the liberation of Kuwait, Bush junior is not as smart as his father was and when it come to military strategy he will never be like his father either, Bush junior is a failure and Iraq is the prof of it.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by marg6043]

Hey, can we all please stick to the Topic and not go off on each other personally?

Originally posted by marg6043
I will said that a very loved, wanted and admired president here in the US and abroad, would be more than safe in his own country and his own soil.

I'm sure JFK thought the same thing. Perhaps Reagan, also. I think the point is this is a prime opportunity for a foreign or domestic based attack. Like it or not, he is the President.

I agree with many of the other posters. Why must we have such an elaborate "celebration". Will it change his stature? Will other countries think less (even more less) of us if we didn't have this big party? We chastise other countries for such a waste of money when they have starving children and families. Well, guess what? We have them, too. I find it rediculous that we waste tax dollars on things like this and big State Dinners when there are better things to do with that money. How much money have we wasted that could have gone for more armor for our troops or money to our schools? Enough is enough!

I could care one iota if Bush becomes a target to militant resistance fighters.

Fear must be driven into the hearts of the elitests.


There are mobile pirate radio stations that will be firing up during the "celebration" with protest information.. I will laugh seeing the FCC try to track these guys down.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by RedOctober90]

Groups planning demonstrations during the inauguration festivities are already smarting from security restrictions. Anti-war protesters with the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition have complained that large sections of the parade route have been set aside for Bush's political contributors and supporters and will be closed to the general public.

I wonder if there are areas reporters are "encouraged" to stick to as well. Perhaps right next to the supporters and contributors..... They say history is written by the victorious.

Besides weapons, other items on the banned list include coolers, folding chairs, bicycles, pets, papier-mache objects, displays such as puppets, mock coffins, props and "any items determined to be a potential safety hazard."

I wonder how papier-mache and puppets are a security threat.....

The anti-abortion Christian Defense Coalition, which is also planning a demonstration, has threatened to sue the government because the Secret Service recently added crosses to its list of objects that are banned from the parade route.

Is it legal to ban crosses? Isn't that a violation of freedom of religion? And *why*? Why ban crosses?


My intent in posting this is not to inflame but to inform. It is my hope that this information might inspire some who unquestioningly believe the motives behind the security measures for the inauguration and parade, to have a more open mind as to why some of these things are being done. Considering the above information, it only seems logical to suspect that part of the purpose is to discourage protesters or at the very least make them invisible.

Stories Here
And Here

Marg,
Im agreeing that your rhetoric that only spews anti-Bush paranoia is quite deep at this point.

smallpeeps,
dito to you for "Bush-Christians" demonizations of people

Harmoniousone,
ANSWER is a crapy group of American haters, no doubt about it.
you ask,

I wonder just how embarrassed the administration will be to see on national and international media, large numbers of people turning their backs on the newly (not, as some say) elected president.

He wont be embarrased in the least, WHY? Because he'll get to stand up and say, see this IS a free country and i respect those peoples right to protest in such a fashion, even tho i dont agree with them. (If this is seen on TV, then all you paranoid types will also have to eat crap for saying "its all to hide the protesters")
This is called taking the high road, and he should be proud that he leads such a nation, ANY President should be.

The fact that ANY USA President is a MAJOR target to be whacked both by forigen and domestic threats is a big reason that protest groups will be kept back from him, there are too many of them, too many variables about who might do what both to him as well as jeapordizing avg citizens nearby...If you think this is just to protect Bush your wrong, some lone wacko with a bomb belt could kill/injure lots of normal people in his attempt to get a President.

There will be a time/place made JUST for people to show up and protest, and anyone is invited to come watch the freak show im sure.

Phreak of blathers about the cost,

at the expense of Social Security.

I see many bashers on here also talking about the cost,
do you people even do any research BEFORE you open your mouths?
lets look here for who's paying,www.cnn.com... the bottom of the article says

Q: How much does all of this cost?
A: The public is contributing at least $2.8 million. Costs run much higher; in 2001, planners raised more than $40 million in private donations to help pay for the festivities. President Bush's team hopes to raise $40 million to $50 million for this inaugural, with a special "underwriter" package for $250,000 and a "sponsor" package of $100,000. Donors who dig deep gets tickets to Bush's swearing-in ceremony, good seats for the inaugural parade and either entry to a lunch or candlelight dinner in which the president, vice president and their spouses will attend.

Hmm so it looks like the overwhelming bulk of the cost will be paid by private donations, NOT the public...
2.8 million is a drop in social security or any other federal budget item.
Im guessing that 2.8 mill will just cover the cost of the congressional costs for planning, and securing members of congress and the affairs/paperwork the governments burocracy generates.
again the bulk of the "party" cocst are being footed privately. BIG DEAL!
geeze people THINK before you speak garbage.

DF1 says,

Any voicing of disagreement has come to be termed "bashing" by republican parrots such as yourself. This is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every American.

BASHING is when people spew garbage like the above without ANY facts to back it up, and only rely on opinionated emotional crud to support their point,
true criticisim of a President SHOULD be encouraged by citizens that have actual points to make, supported by some kind of legitimate "evidence" to back it up.
Learn the differance and people wont call you out for obvious bashing and perhaps actually listen to what you have to say instead of waving it off as baseless emotive drivel.

I do not see the government silencing either the BS type nor the more accuratly backed kind of dissention.
This is yet another emotive LIE spewed to play upon tugging at heartstrings, its an old and cheap tactic used by people with no other more valid ammo.

As far as the President being accessable to the citizens, i feel he should be, yet he is a target! A Presidents security has been important both to governmental function and national pride as it always was.
This person is the leader of the most powerful nation on the globe, with over 250 million citizens, like he really has the time to hand hold every ticked off citizen? like we can afford to pay the cost to make ANY President secure enough to even allow/atempt such folly.

WHY DO WE CELEBRATE THIS?
read my link to learn more about the history of this event and its purpose
Mabey then, you'll actually have checked your facts before trying to "bag" Bush for this...(UNLIKE CBS DID WITH ITS DOCUMENTS EH? LOL)

Originally posted by df1
Yes, I believe that citizens should have access to the President and be allowed to tell him that they believe is doing a poor job as President. Any voicing of disagreement has come to be termed "bashing" by republican parrots such as yourself. This is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every American.
.

First of all...since when it has been allowed that people who disagree with any of the past presidents can get close to him and start bashing him, or even shouting obscenities and idiocities?.... There is bound to be at least one crazy loon among those who disagree with a president and try to cause him harm, or worse...

I want to see when Clinton, or any other past democratic presidents were allowed to be right next to those who strongly disagreed with him, those that even go to the point of resorting to violence....

Second, I do not consider myself a bird, and unless i did start insulting you before this was uncalled for. If I ever get sarcastic is because others become sarcastic or resort to insults.... Anyways, you know what you can do with your own parrot if you have one?....you can shove it where the sun don't shine. Even if you don't own one, you can buy one and repeat as above....

BTW, if you want to continue with the insults take it to U2U, but leave it off the forum, noone else should be a witness of any bickering.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Damned
Just admit it! You are actually Anne Coulter, aren't you?

Nope, i am a man and proud to be one.

And to tell you the truth i don't know who Anne Coulter is. If i was invited to the inaguration is because i worked as a volunteer for the Republican party in my area and also because i worked, although not for long, for a Republican Judge during the primary elections.

Is not paranoia I care less for the president itself but I am very much worry for the people that will be around DC for the celebration.

The paranoia is not because I think terrorists will do something to the people, but what our government militia will to them.

The only one spreading paranoia is the Government itself, with guidelines of how to behave and what not to do because the security around the man that was elected by the citizens of this country (that's what they tell us) wants or not wants.

Now when people are warn about guidelines of what to do because it may be dangerous to you as a citizen how to behave in from of your democratically elected leader, something is definitely wrong and we should take all this very seriously.

Is good to joke and be sarcastic but read my words something is not right with our president.

Perhaps he is in a state of fright because he knows that his actions in Iraq and the middle east has made him an enemy to the middle eastern people.

Perhaps he has some health problem that if somebody does anything he may have a hart attack.

Or perhaps he is just to full of himself that he needs control of the population even in is own inauguration.

Or he thinks that the American people will do something to make a mockery of him.

And one thing is for sure Mr. Bush does not like to be mock at.

I wonder also how many regular citizens will be arrested during the inaguration for any actions that our government will deem to be as been agains the government and for that they will be tag enemies of the state and the patriot act will be enforce.

Originally posted by marg6043

I tell you what, what happened to the days of picnics in the white house lawn and the drunk parties.

It was a time when the presidents used to have their doors open to the littler people that elected them and everybody used to enjoy themselves in peace.

The inauguration ceremonies are for the people no the president they are the way in which the citizens of this country celebrate how democracy is done.

Our inaugurations are just more of a show in which presidents are the main attraction and more and more they are becoming just the celebration of the elite, not the regular people.

1. Times have changed. So what? Kennedy got his head shot off, okay?

2. Quit directly blaming the president for every result of the current ecopolitical climate of the world. He's just a man - you give this person you apparently hate so much way too much credit.

3. What "drunk parties"?

4. The inauguration ceremony involves the swearing in of the president to office. Any celebration thereafter is for the president, who deserves to party and celebrate after the immeasurable amount of effort that he put forth to become president.

5. I've been around for many inauguration celebrations, and I don't remember ever having an overwhelming feeling of "YAY THIS IS DEMOCRACY AT ITS FINEST!!!" during the course of any of them... For me, personally, it is a time to reflect on the past presidency and consider what the future may bring with the new president...

You are an incredibly negative person, marg. You really ought to lighten up. In the words of Suicidal Tendencies, 99% of life is what you make of it, so if your life sucks, you suck.

Zip

Personally, I think all the hoopla about the inauguration is in poor taste at the best of times. But especially in a time of war and a time of terrible tradegy in the world even more so. Regardless of the amount spent or who's paying for it. The President should have more sense than that (as other war presidents have had). Oh...but that could only be if he were thinking of the people. But he's not...never was and never will be thinking of the people. He's there for a bigger, scarier purpose. Just look at how your country has changed since he came on board the first time. I shudder to think what he and his cronies are going to do over the next 4 years.

To me, well, he's just...as Mammy in Gone With the Wind would put it... "nuthin' but a mule in horse harness." He grew up with money and never had to get his hands dirty to make a living. Got money from the Bin Laden's to finance his first business which flopped. Never made a success of anything he did...except this. Imagine! A man who never even had a passport until he became president, had never been anywhere except Texas, Connecticut and Maine! Incredible...

Besides...if for nothing else, his first inauguration didn't go very well, what makes him think this one will?

The nation's 55th presidential inauguration, the first to be held since 9/11, will take place this month under perhaps the heaviest security of any in U.S. history.

Dozens of federal and local law enforcement agencies and military commands are planning what they describe as the heaviest possible security. Virtually everyone who gets within eyesight of the president either during the Jan. 20 inauguration ceremony at the U.S. Capitol or the inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue later in the day will first go through a metal detector or receive a body pat-down.
.....

Other instructions given performers include a warning NOT TO LOOK DIRECTLY at Bush while passing the presidential reviewing stand, not to look to either side and not to make any sudden movements.

"They want you to just look straight ahead," said Danielle Adam, co-director of the Mid American Pompon All Star Team from Michigan, which also performed in the 2001 inaugural parade.



Dont look at Bush
I wonder what would happen..............

Okay, I was just reading some of the later posts here and I've got to double-post...

Guys, you can tell the president how you feel any time you want -- he has an email address. You can't tell him to his face because GUESS WHAT --- he's an IMPORTANT, BUSY MAN and you are NOT IMPORTANT in comparison to him. There is not enough time in the day for him to sit and get yelled at by some discordant hippies.

As always, I will remind you that all of the complaining in the world won't change anything. If you feel strongly about something you must take action to change it. If you don't take action, then you obviously don't feel THAT strongly about it, you just like to talk a lot.

ORGANIZE.

ACTIVATE.

AGITATE.

Zip

Muaddib, get a grip. The first insulting, trolling post here was YOURS.