It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dictator Bush. Is It Really Possible?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
He's making America Babylon

check it out.

America = 666




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Bush a dictator?

Never be allowed to happen.

Why?

Because after the way he has botched the war in Iraq and immigration and energy policy, etc., no one likes him anymore. Not Republicans, not the military, practically no one. He has little or no support base left.

With no support base, just how would Bush get dictatorial powers, let alone keep them. Even Hitler (that so many here like to unfairly compare with Bush
) had to have the nazi party behind him to make his grab for power.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I am actually worried of the exact same thing. Now some people here state that if it happened there would be massive revolts but...I'm not sure about that, and I'm from the USA for one thing.

First of all, you have to keep in mind that, while Americans don't like to admit it, we have one of the best propaganda systems in the world, so good that most Americans don't even realize its propaganda. I recall reading a survey and the country with the most people who were proud to be that nationality was America.

I can see past it all and I know the truth, I don't hate the USA I hate who's in charge and I'm against blind patriotism and nationalism.

But I've noticed that tons and tons of people are so blindly patriotic in the US that they ignore every wrongdoing that the USA does, making excuses and twisting it around, even making up lies to somehow justify it...I really wouldn't be surprised...if the military would still back him up.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
From what I understand there is nothing in the US constitution that woul allow the President to stay in office after his 4th year without an election. There is an amendment that states that a sitting president only can have two terms in office. (I love the constitution) So no matter what the president is out at the end of 08. There would have to be an election even if martial law was declaired and a new president elected into office.

Basicly Bush would have to rip up the constitution and preform a coup over the other two branches of US government. That is the day you would see a huge country wide uprising. Every single person in this country that loves the ideas brought forth by the constitution would not stand by and let someone destroy it and try and take over. I doubt that many law inforcement officers, or military personell would take too kindly to the the affront to their core beliefs like that.

I think that even Bush doesnt have the cahones to push his adjenda that far. What will probably happen is that the GOP will put forth someone that would favor Bush's ideas and would be easy to manipulate (like Bush) and so they would have a bush like prez in the white house again. That is if they win the election. Traditionaly US citizens don't like a dem prez with a dem house and senate.

In fact I don't think I can recall a time when there was a dem house, senate and president.

But back on topic. I doubt that Bush is dumb enough to try something like that. Although I have been known to be wrong before.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

In fact I don't think I can recall a time when there was a dem house, senate and president.


I believe it was democrats running all 3 branches of government during the Kennedy (Bay of Pigs, start of Viet Nam), Johnson (Viet Nam)and Carter (Iran hostages) terms. Not the brightest spots in U.S. history ...



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

As far as the world intervening in such an instance. I doubt it. The world didn't intervene when Hitler basically declared himself leader of Germany. It didn't intervene when castro took Cuba.. It didn't intervene when Lenin was over Russia... Why wuld it all of a sudden intervene against the most powerful military state the world has ever seen?


Well, not to be too nitpicky or anything, but the world did attempt to intervene when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917, they just didnt do a very good job, having their hands full with Germany and Austria at the time.
And the reason that other countries intervened in the Revolution wasnt because of idealogical differences, it was because they didn't want Russia to pull out of the alliance against Germany. It was a purely man power motivated thing.

And the US did attempt to overthrow Castro a few times... they were just all extremely unsuccessful.

But anyway, to the broader topic at hand... If Bush does attempt to make himself a dictator, I would rise up, but I would also be aware of the fact that I would die doing so.
Let me explain.
A thought occured to me the other night when I was watching that "FutureWeapons" show on the Discovery Channel (actually, it was the military channel, but not everyone has digital cable, so just to clarify). My thought was: One of the fundamental principles of democracy is the ability for the people to rise up and change their government once it becomes corrupt (as all governments do), sometimes even violently. But today, the military has such an impossible advantage that armed insurrection would be literally impossible to pull off.

Understand something. I don't really believe in the NWO (at the moment) but ladies and gentleman, if the head of the United States ever does decide to pull a military coup, and they succeed, were all going to have to learn to live with it, or surely die in the process.

I guess this is where the whole, "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" comes into play.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
From what I understand there is nothing in the US constitution that woul allow the President to stay in office after his 4th year without an election. There is an amendment that states that a sitting president only can have two terms in office. (I love the constitution) So no matter what the president is out at the end of 08. There would have to be an election even if martial law was declaired and a new president elected into office.

Basicly Bush would have to rip up the constitution and preform a coup over the other two branches of US government. That is the day you would see a huge country wide uprising. Every single person in this country that loves the ideas brought forth by the constitution would not stand by and let someone destroy it and try and take over. I doubt that many law inforcement officers, or military personell would take too kindly to the the affront to their core beliefs like that.

I think that even Bush doesnt have the cahones to push his adjenda that far. What will probably happen is that the GOP will put forth someone that would favor Bush's ideas and would be easy to manipulate (like Bush) and so they would have a bush like prez in the white house again. That is if they win the election. Traditionaly US citizens don't like a dem prez with a dem house and senate.

In fact I don't think I can recall a time when there was a dem house, senate and president.

But back on topic. I doubt that Bush is dumb enough to try something like that. Although I have been known to be wrong before.


That's not how a national state of emergency works. Using emergency powers under The War Powers Act can suspend the Constitution. Nothing under the Constitution is in effect while suspended, otherwise you couldn't say it was suspended. The President can pretty much make up the rules as he goes if it gets to that point. One more massive terrorist attack and it will begin. A President's first order of business (if he wanted to be a Dictator) would be keeping our millitary busy overseas (to minimize any fruitful revolt here) while conditions get bad enough here to justify bringing in the UN. The idiot populace (never letting me down) will think this is a good thing of course.

You know when you really do your homework, it looks like the real reason behind the sudden dissolving of the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution was exactly for the purpose of circumventing it over time. It would have been impossible for the government to get this large and be in the position its in to cause this much trouble under the old republic.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
You know I have a bad feeling this long awaited announcement by the Prez today is going to herald in bad news. It's been too long since the elections and the ISG and all this talk of sacrifice and service sounds like the draft or something very similar.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
HJ 24 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

link here thomas.loc.gov...:H.J.RES.24.IH:

Seriously I keep hearing everyone on say that this can never happen yet here is some evidence to the contrary



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by massexodus
That's not how a national state of emergency works. Using emergency powers under The War Powers Act can suspend the Constitution. Nothing under the Constitution is in effect while suspended, otherwise you couldn't say it was suspended. The President can pretty much make up the rules as he goes if it gets to that point. One more massive terrorist attack and it will begin. A President's first order of business (if he wanted to be a Dictator) would be keeping our millitary busy overseas (to minimize any fruitful revolt here) while conditions get bad enough here to justify bringing in the UN. The idiot populace (never letting me down) will think this is a good thing of course.

You know when you really do your homework, it looks like the real reason behind the sudden dissolving of the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution was exactly for the purpose of circumventing it over time. It would have been impossible for the government to get this large and be in the position its in to cause this much trouble under the old republic.


The War Powers Act of 1973

Did I miss something? There is nothing in that act that gives the president emergency powers.

What does apply in a case of Martial Law declaired by the president is this.

US CODE: Title 50. CHAPTER 34-NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT

And even that only would give the prez two years to come up with a good enough reason to keep this coup going.

Does anyone remember about 10 or 15 years ago when a lot of people were calling for a new continental congress because of how badly the current congress (at the time) was doing? I tried looking it up but the only relevent thing I found was from 2003.

Proposed Declaration of the Third Continental Congress

All I am saying is that the President has to have a VERY valid reason to suspend the constitution and take over the country. Even then eventualy he would have to advicate to someone else.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by untouchable
But I seriously hope he does.
I would love to see Bush get shot.


What Bush did to the afghans and the iraqis is as bad as what saddam has done himself, he should have been hung by the americans as they captured him, and as a rightful process bush should be handed to the iraqis



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I think no one can tell what will happen in 2008.
Will he be a dictator or not, that 's not so important. The most importened thing I think is the organisations supporting him and their One World Order concept.

Look at anyone at the bohemian grove, in the illuminati, the freemasons, the royalties, the bilderberg conference, the G8,... It's one big network of people supporting the same idea's.

Non of them would admit that they are part of a secret plot. But most of us realise the truth. We have to start doing something to stop these secret societies from creating a overcontrolled world.

Discussions on ATS mostly seem to lead nowhere...
And that's because there are people here creating biassed idea's.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
There is a dictator Bush, but it isn't the idiot GW Bush, he is far too stupid for that role (even though he was probably intended to be the dictator of USA at some stage). It is his father G Bush snr (former boss of CIA) who is the one making the big decisions in USA.

www.serendipity.li...



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Most likely he will not try to become a dictator simply because there is such immense dislilke of his politics, however you have to remember that the president is not neccesarily the person who pulls all the strings... The group who wish to rule the US (be it neo-cons, nwo, illuminati or whatever) are much more succesfull if they allow the people to keep their illusion of control. If the people BELIEVE that they have a say they are much less likely to revolt no matter how bad the country is actually run.

So what does this mean for our scenario? Well, as I'm sure you know the votes are counted by computers which are controlled by wealthy groups with political interests. You have no way of knowing what your vote actually ends up as, or if it's even counted at all. If they want to stay in control they will simply "elect" themselves a new president trough their control of just about everything. As they say, it doesn't matter who votes, but who counts the votes. So the people will believe this new president was legaly ellected and go on with their lives. They might diagree with his decisions and policy, but they won't revolt.

So no, I don't think anyone will proclaim themself dictator of the us any time soon, but that doesn't mean you have a fair democratic system! It's all a show you know. Congress doesn't read what they vote on anyway, and most people have no clue how the hole system works. They watch FOX and believe that the US is the greatest country in the world. "Go back to bed America, nothing to see here!" Who said that it's called the american dream because you have to be asleep to believe it?


Oh and please don't see this as me bashing america! I'm not! I'm just trying to point out that you might already be under total control and there is nothing much to do about it.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Bush has engaged undeterred in a program of granting himself power, removing oversight of his office, and removing the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Taking the president as an individual out of the equation, because of the personal feelings associated with Bush as an individual, what we ultimately have is an executive branch using its own power to grant itself more power, and to remove oversight of its office, all while acting in opposition to the Constitution and constituency to which it serves.

We are supposed to be protected against this sort of abuse of power. This is an aberration beyond words, and one can only hope something is done about it.

The fact that no one is responding to these injustices, however, says a lot about our government, and about our inability as a people to respond to what we see as inescusable, reckless, unconscionable and dangerous behavior in the executive office.

This is just what's been happening at home. If you take what the executive branch has engaged in with regard to atrocities and illicit acts in other countries, or the suspect organization it has formed with the head of Mexico and Canada you have the makings for an unprecedented misuse and abuse of power that must be acknowledged, corrected, and the president held accountable.

I'm ashamed of this country and don't feel that the American flag is a symbol for anything other than oppression and imperialism, and those aren't the values I hold dear.

F' our government for allowing our country to embrace and enforce the values of imperialism, dictatorships and fascist countries, and God save us all.



[edit on 10-1-2007 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Nygdan is correct. There are no legal provisions, short of constitutional amendment, by which a president can extend his term.

The constitution is quite clear that Bush's term WILL END on 20 January, 2009, come hell or high water, because the 20th Amendment clearly separates the end and beginning of terms as unrelated events.

If no election is held, Bush will still lose the office. The 20th stipulates that in the absence of a president ready to assume the office by inauguration day, congress has the right to choose one in the interim until one can be elected and/or qualify.

Because term limits under the 22nd only apply to elected presidents, an appointed president could theoretically be a lame duck, even Bush, but he'd still have to pass muster with congress first.

Even the destruction of congress wouldn't fix anything because states retain the right to replace their representatives, so the states have 13 days from the election (and death of) the new congress to appoint enough members to form a quorum.


I haven't looked at the law regarding cabinet positions. I believe they terminate automatically, but if not, a cabinet officer could claim succession, but would require a SCOTUS ruling almost certainly, in the unlikely event that nothing could be done to get somebody into the office on the 20th (which would imply that congress wasn't functioning, which is why i have ignored the Speaker of the house and president pro tem, assuming that they'd have to be dead for the issue to come up)



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

Originally posted by massexodus
That's not how a national state of emergency works. Using emergency powers under The War Powers Act can suspend the Constitution. Nothing under the Constitution is in effect while suspended, otherwise you couldn't say it was suspended. The President can pretty much make up the rules as he goes if it gets to that point. One more massive terrorist attack and it will begin. A President's first order of business (if he wanted to be a Dictator) would be keeping our millitary busy overseas (to minimize any fruitful revolt here) while conditions get bad enough here to justify bringing in the UN. The idiot populace (never letting me down) will think this is a good thing of course.

You know when you really do your homework, it looks like the real reason behind the sudden dissolving of the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution was exactly for the purpose of circumventing it over time. It would have been impossible for the government to get this large and be in the position its in to cause this much trouble under the old republic.


The War Powers Act of 1973

Did I miss something? There is nothing in that act that gives the president emergency powers.

What does apply in a case of Martial Law declaired by the president is this.

quote]Originally posted by whatukno

Originally posted by massexodus
That's not how a national state of emergency works. Using emergency powers under The War Powers Act can suspend the Constitution. Nothing under the Constitution is in effect while suspended, otherwise you couldn't say it was suspended. The President can pretty much make up the rules as he goes if it gets to that point. One more massive terrorist attack and it will begin. A President's first order of business (if he wanted to be a Dictator) would be keeping our millitary busy overseas (to minimize any fruitful revolt here) while conditions get bad enough here to justify bringing in the UN. The idiot populace (never letting me down) will think this is a good thing of course.

You know when you really do your homework, it looks like the real reason behind the sudden dissolving of the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution was exactly for the purpose of circumventing it over time. It would have been impossible for the government to get this large and be in the position its in to cause this much trouble under the old republic.


The War Powers Act of 1973

Did I miss something? There is nothing in that act that gives the president emergency powers.

What does apply in a case of Martial Law declaired by the president is this.

US CODE: Title 50. CHAPTER 34-NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT

And even that only would give the prez two years to come up with a good enough reason to keep this coup going.

Does anyone remember about 10 or 15 years ago when a lot of people were calling for a new continental congress because of how badly the current congress (at the time) was doing? I tried looking it up but the only relevent thing I found was from 2003.

Proposed Declaration of the Third Continental Congress

All I am saying is that the President has to have a VERY valid reason to suspend the constitution and take over the country. Even then eventualy he would have to advicate to someone else.


I didn't want to go here because it usually widens arguments and derails threads when I've brought it up on message boards in the past, but I have to admit I wasn't being entirely forthcoming about what I already know.

None of the above you posted does away with the damage caused by the original Constitution busting War Powers Act of 1933. If your going to talk about the War Powers you have to know its history. Have a good read. Only the President can kabosh a state of emergency in effect.


A Special Report on the National
Emergency in the United States of America


Seriously, everything is in place under U.S.C and Executive Orders (I'll include signing statetments since it's the same damn thing) for the office of the President (under globalist influence of course) to make its move against the people of the US. The Constitution has been dead since '33. The illusion of it being intact is kept on to prevent a revolt against our hijacked government.



[edit on 10-1-2007 by massexodus]

[edit on 10-1-2007 by massexodus]

[edit on 10-1-2007 by massexodus]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The very concept of a suspendable constitution runs contrary to the point of having a constitution at all. There is no way to suspend the constitution, regardless of what executive orders or the US Code might say.

As I've said many times, it ultimately comes down to force- the executive branch versus the SCOTUS and possibly the legislature, with the loyalty of agencies under the direction of the executive being tested. That's where we would get into the unitary executive theory, because the SCOTUS can issue a writ of mandamus compelling executive agencies subordinate to the president to uphold the law, the president would claim that the writ could only be applied to him and could not be followed without his approval, and the men with the guns would essentially be the ones making the final decision.


I used to be one of the men with the guns and I know quite a few of them. My general impression is that most of them will do what their unit's chain of command tells them to do from the batallion level down except in the most obvious contradictions of their morals (for instance, a lot of Marines have told me they would never go to war against Israel), it's hard to be sure where all of the batallion commanders will go- probably the majority will follow their chain of command but not all. Generals... I don't know the men and I'm not going to try to guess. I seem to recall either Tommy Franks or Anthony Zinni- I forget which, saying a few years ago that Bush was running the risk of a coup under certain circumstances.

I believe that most opposition party governors would use their state agencies as well as attempt to retain control of their national guard forces to protect the constitution, and if necessary would likely order the arrest of federal agents answering to agencies backing the executive.

A hand full of states (I'd call Arizona almost a sure thing) would put out a voluntary call for the unorganized militia as well, more as an attention getter than anything.

Ultimately I believe that an attempt to practice any plan for a constitutional override would be quickly defeated with a minimum of violence, in the face of overwhelming opposition and major deployability problems for federal forces because of morale, chain of command issues, and of course the present spread of American troops overseas.

The most likely potential for a flareup of violence, assuming congress was alive, in DC, and not of the same party as the president, would be in DC, as the Congress would be almost honor bound to attempt to order the DC Police to arrest the President.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I wanted to post something more in the light side...I mean we can go down in flames, but we don't have to be morose about it...lol...

ARTICLE LINK



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
No. It would be illegal. Anyone that tries to make themself Dictator of America will be shot.


Exactly. And as long as there are enough of us exercising our 'Right to Bear Arms' we not only would have the motive to do shoot, we'd have the means as well.


If you are intent upon scaring yourself, then take a long hard look at the fact that the flake Nancy Pelosi is only two heart beats from the Oval Office! *shudder* That's FRIGHTENING!


[edit on 1/10/2007 by FlyersFan]







 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join