Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

page: 5
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I am proud to say that I never supported this bastard...

I didn't vote for bush minor in 2000 and I know I damn well didn't vote for him in 2004, nor have I voted for any of his enablers holding office today.

Hell I made a point of voting for John McCain in the 2000 primary here in Virginia, even though I would not have voted for him in the general elections.

Why? Because even then he was being touted as the next president even before the primary season had begun and he had no delegates... even then it was obvious something was up.

And I am proud to say that I am not one of a johnny come lately to opposition to this war. I endured the insults and obscenities and the eggs thrown as we stood in protest during the lead up to this war.

When are people going to wake up and realize that they have been sold a false bill of goods and the well being of the American populous are the last thing in these people's minds as they make their grab for total power?

The thing is it has been in the works for at least a decade, once it became obvious that the Reagan revolution was petering out under Bush the first. And they have not been subtle about it either... if you read the speeches and the comments scattered around they have been very open about it... their plan was/is to establish a one party state and to totally lock liberals and democrats and anyone else who objected out from the halls of power and to establish a permanent Republican/conservative grip on power. THIS HAS NOT EXACTLY BEEN A SECRET. These massive deficits are part of the plan as well.... Both Grover Norquist (no relation
) and presidential candidate Jim Gilmore (who made a financial mess of Virginia and did his best to hide it from his Democratic successor) are both on record as saying that the plan is to run up so much red ink that the congress and state legislatures will have no choice but to eliminate ALL governmental programs outside of the military and police.

It is called the establishment of a one party police state... it is also called a coup and treason and a betrayal of the constitution... and it is the Republicans that are doing this... keep that in mind if we get a chance to vote again.

To hell with aliens... masons and illuminati and new world orders... this is the real conspiracy unfolding as we speak. It might not happen but that is besides the point... they are laying the framework for it so when they get the chance to stage their coup, they will.... we can only hope our military is really as patriotic as we hope to stand up to them.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by grover]




posted on May, 23 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I am proud to say that I never supported this bastard...


I am with you on this one, I have been around many presidents . . . but none of them has given me the rage, anger and bad vibes of evilness as the one in our white house right now.

I have always been very good at character reading and this is the first time in my life that I can not see anything good coming from a person like our president right now.

He is surrounded by a veil of bad things and god has nothing to do with him at all.


Whenever I look at him in the news I only see a void, weird.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Houtchens
In my own opinion, the government is not there to bail out folks who not only refuse to heed warnings and but also refuse to acquire flood insurance in an area BELOW SEA LEVEL NEXT TO THE OCEAN.


Oh really????
And I suppose the thought has not occured to you that IF these poor people could afford flood insurance, then they could also have afforded to be able to get out in time.

Have you ever even experienced what it is like to be so poor? Sure doesn't sound like you have the slightest idea about the subject. I'm not talking poor as in, gee I only have $50 to last until Friday...I'm talking poor, as in, gee my water just got turned off because I didn't have the $30 for the bill, and the job I used to have has been given to someone in another country.



Oh and by the way, it's not like he has not kept your body safe from harm in the 6 years after 9/11. Forget the cells that have been disrupted and the LAX and Fort Gillam disasters that were diverted.


The only body he has tried to keep safe from harm is his own...it's called cya.

Bush details 2002 plot to attack L.A. Tower



The president's speech came on the same day as a Senate hearing into the Bush-ordered warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail by Americans and their contacts overseas, but aides said his comments were not related to the dispute over the program...

But several U.S. intelligence officials played down the relative importance of the alleged plot and attributed the timing of Bush's speech to politics. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to publicly criticize the White House, said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the Library Tower scheme and whether it was ever much more than talk...

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, mocked the idea of raising the alleged Library Tower plot. "Maybe they're tired of talking about [the] Brooklyn Bridge and they're trying to find a different edifice of some sort," he said, referring to another alleged terrorist plot that some have said was inflated by the government.



Bush's four anti-terror successes All fictional



Michael Scheuer, an al Qaeda expert in the CIA's counter-terrorism center, told the Voice of America: "This doesn't sound like anything that I would recall as a major threat, or as a major success in stopping it….My impression [was that the National Security Council] culled through information to look for something that resembled a serious threat in 2002. It doesn't strike me, either as someone who was there or as someone who has followed al Qaeda pretty closely, that this was really a serious sort of effort."


Bush shoots for Jaws, delivers Jaws 2



President claimed to stop four terror plots, but where is the evidence?...

More ominously, the LA Times source who debunked the Library Tower story said that those who could correctly measure the flimsiness of the scheme "feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan than that of the president."...

And you continued with a second dubious claim of counterterror success. "We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States," you said.

Well, sir, you've apparently stumped the intelligence community completely with this one...

Your third claim, sir, read thusly: "We uncovered an al-Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America."

Again, the professionals in counterintelligence were startled to hear about this...

"And just last August," you concluded, "British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean."...

Turned out, sir, a few of them actually had gone on the Internets to check out some flight schedules.

Turned out, sir, only a few of them actually had the passports needed to even get on the planes.

The plot to which President Bush referred was a plot without bombs.


How pathetic.




Personally, I don't think that a dictatorship would be such a bad thing...


Then you are living in the wrong country.

We are Americans and WE won't stand for it!

On edit, I've tested the links and they work, but some of them are a bit slow.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by ShadowEyes]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I'm not sure what Bush has done this either. My guess, since I'm not one for conspiracies, is that he is updated the executive orders that have been on the books since the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

Most of the conspiracy theorists who like to envision America as a Stalinist state, are keen to harken back to those exec. orders for proof of how such a thing could be done.

What I wonder is where the conspiracy theorists were when Clinton was getting campaigning contributions from the Chinese? Or what conspiracy is behind Sandy Berger stuffy archives documents into his socks and dumping them at a construction site?

Most of the contracts in Iraq have gone to foreign companies, not Haliburton, so it's time that someone face that fact and stop demonizing Cheney and Bush because you are frustrated with an ideology you oppose. We have yet to take a drop of Iraqi oil since the we invaded Iraq, so the war for oil argument doesn't hold water.

I'm frankly more concerned about the lack of concern in our government for meaningful protection of our borders, and enforcement of our immigration laws than anything else.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   


Most of the contracts in Iraq have gone to foreign companies, not Haliburton, so it's time that someone face that fact and stop demonizing Cheney and Bush because you are frustrated with an ideology you oppose. We have yet to take a drop of Iraqi oil since the we invaded Iraq, so the war for oil argument doesn't hold water.

It wasn't for oil, it was for oil traded in DOLLARS.



I'm frankly more concerned about the lack of concern in our government for meaningful protection of our borders, and enforcement of our immigration laws than anything else.

Their concern is that there's not enough illegal aliens and that they may not be able to pass amnesty, they don't care.

Bush passed on May 9 The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive giving him TOTAL POWER over EVERYTHING in case of a big event, terrorist attack or bird flu outbreak. EVERYTHING. And you think that they don't want a stalinist state? Denial... look for it in the dictionnary.

The gun is pointed at United States's face and it just need a trigger of some kind and it's over.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Hey Grover and Shadow- nice well thought out replies.

I will make a few rebuttles to your points.

Both of you omitted the last part of the sentence you quoted me for saying about dictatorships. Here is the full context: Dictatorships are not a bad thing CONSIDERING that we kill over one million fellow human beings in this country every year. Name another country where abortion is illegal and match up the statistics. They don't match. Name a dictatorship where the number of human lives lost is equal to the life lost here. I believe that our view of human life says something about us, much in the same way it made a statement about the way Germans carried out the "final solution" in before and during WWII. Those who stood by and said nothing were guilty as well. I feel the same way about the death penalty, by the way. My article "The Jellyfish of Micronesia" touches on this arguement.

The bad thing about dictatorships is when they go bad, much evil flourishes there. I think North Korea had a couple of years where they lost over 1 million due to starvation. But 6, 7 years in a row? "Well, you are talking about FETUSES, and they don't matter." That's precisely my point.

I don't think that the US should be about totalitarianism. I agree with your view on that. I also don't think the US should be about destroying unborn children. Do you really think, for a moment, that if Jefferson, Adams, Hancock and the rest of the framers of the constitution could see into the future and see our practice of infanticide, that they would have stood for that for a moment? There's no way.

The previously mentioned article in my other post was called "If I Were President," and can be found at houtchblog.blogspot.com.... I would invite you to come visit, even if you disagree with my views. I have some articles of humor there that may be more to your liking.

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
First: Unless a fetus has developed enough to viably live outside the mothers body it is not a child so lay off the emotionally laden language.

Second: Its none of your damned business whether someone chooses an abortion or not. It is fine and admirable that you oppose them but that does not give you the right to impose your morals on someone else.

Third: AND MOST IMPORTANT This thread is not about abortion so stop trying to hijack it. Find a thread on here on the subject and post away.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Abortion????

What in the world has that got to do with the subject of THIS thread?

I call that a red herring.

If you wish to talk about abortion, then go start your own thread. And BTW, your self-promoting does not belong here either.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Wow. I knew they were likely going to try something similar to this, but I had no idea they'd make it so obvious. What the # do they take us for? If it's a civil war they want, then they shouldn't be surprised when a large number of us decide to show some balls. It's really a simple concept: martial law will NOT happen without a serious uprising.

And stop trying to hijack the thread with your abortion bull#. A human being isn't a human being until it breathes its first breath of thoroughly polluted air.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Houtchens...abortion...destroying unborn children....infanticide


Heheh, abortion. Way to miss the point and push an agenda. Is there any chance that viewpoint is fueled by ancient beliefs?


I would however say that dictatorship isn't inherently a bad thing, in fact I think a benelovent dictatorship is really a better form of government than democracy. The problem is though, that you have to be very sure your dictator means well, and there's probably not one person in America who could say that the current US government is benelovent and keep a straight face.

This is bad news for sure, perhaps we'll see some alarming action in a far shorter timescale than I have been expecting. I don't know how Bush keeps on getting away with stuff, it's almost like nobody cares. I'd hope that your country would have one 'crazy' cancer patient who wanted to do something constructive and put a bullet through Bush's head. However without RADICAL change this corruption is here to stay; you just need to try and trade this corruption with a lesser evil.


Originally posted by gottago
But hey--at least we don't have gov't spycams on every lamp-post--at least not yet. We just bash in heads.

Give a wave to MI-5 on your way to work tomorow!

What the hell is with this attitude? The whole world is going to sh** and all you can do is make pot shots at each other (the US/UK). These Americans shouting about the UK police state when the UK complains about political corruption and vica versa. Grow up, don't you understand that everything like this is equally bad for humanities' freedom?

(oh, and by the way, most of the spycams are NOT government, they are private, for protection of property due to a massively underfunded police force - police state my arse)



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I have always been half seriously an advocate of a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system but the older I get, the less half and the more serious about the issue I become. Baldly put, our system no longer works... it doesn't matter whether its Republicans or Democrats in control, the system is broken and no manner of reform is going to mend it... the moneyed interests are simply never going to let enough reform happen for our system to work again for all of us and no third party is going to save us either.

If we must we could allow bush minor to be president for life with absolutely no power other than to mangle the English language every time he opens his mouth and after he's gone beg the queen to take us back... I love the idea of reigning without ruling and votes of no confidence. Hell Italy runs just fine without a functional government for most of the time... we could follow its mold and stop worrying about world dominion and concern ourselves instead with the things that really matter...sex.... good food and fine wines.


[edit on 23-5-2007 by grover]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
This is a surprise? I've had a feeling this whole year (2007) that such a travesty would be passed. Not only does this allow this president (if he wants) to take control of this country, but, it allows for future presidents to exploit this law.

I'm more worried about the mainstream media not reporting this issue though. What's up with that? Aren't the citizens of this country PROMISED to know what's going on with their government?

I really do enjoy this country. I really would love to see this country become what it was destined to become. Not what all empires (of a sort) become. A fascist nation. I'm not originally from the U.S but I am a citizen now. It scares me that most original citizens don't take the time to read their original constitutional rights, the rights that shouldn't be thrown aside. The laws that today are completely looked over.

Keep your hope though. If you lose your courage and hope you'll lose your will to do anything about this issue.

Also... What's up with the hi-jacking of this thread? Nobody is here to discuss abortion. All I can say is search for the other threads about this topic and post there.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by Donoso]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
First: Unless a fetus has developed enough to viably live outside the mothers body it is not a child so lay off the emotionally laden language.

Second: Its none of your damned business whether someone chooses an abortion or not. It is fine and admirable that you oppose them but that does not give you the right to impose your morals on someone else.

Third: AND MOST IMPORTANT This thread is not about abortion so stop trying to hijack it. Find a thread on here on the subject and post away.


Hey Grover.

You are right, this thread is not about abortion. Had you not edited my statement by cutting half a sentence off for the purpose of spinning me, I would not have had to explain myself.

My point was to reflect on the morals of our country, and of differing governments for the purposes of comparison. I thought that related to the topic of Bush doing something that is morally wrong- please forgive me if I misinterpreted.

How am I imposing anything on anyone simply by stating my thoughts? If I make a statement, how does that keep anyone from acting or thinking any way they want? I thought the loving left were supposed to be for the freedom of speech and ideas. Oh yes, thats right, unless it conflicts with theirs.

Ok, I have no desire for arguement, but I felt I had to explain myself. Flame away if you want.

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
You brought abortion into this thread with your first post and it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread no matter how you spin it. I do believe I said that your opposition to abortion is admirable ( I don''t like it either, big difference is I am not about to attempt to impose my morals on another person), also if you read further than my post, there are several others annoyed by your attempt to hijack this thread.

P.S. I have no problem with you expressing an opinion different than mine... in the proper context. I do believe there are several threads going on about abortion currently, if you wish to debate the issue with me and I feel so inclined, name the thread and I will meet you there. This thread is about bush and his scheming.



[edit on 23-5-2007 by grover]



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Well, there is a tie in to abortion- It should have been Barb's first choice. Okay that was mean, but not completely unforeseen.

Good thread, and even though I post only once in a while, I still read, and flag.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Hi ! This is my first post as a new member and this reply is about lil bush proclaiming himself as the protector . If you have noticed , all of a sudden ol' boogeyman bin laden is back in the news supposedly makeing new threats against america and it's interests .Mostly threatening terror strikes inside the U.S. .How conveneate that ubl. pops up when the heat gets turned up on bush and his cohorts !



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I'm not sure that america *would* stand up against martial law.

Yes, I think some people would, but you have no need of such things as crude weapons when you have chains around people's minds.

That's what truly worries me, the fact that there are so many people who are so unwilling to wake up and smell what their fancy roses are growing in..

I think that, if something is to happen, it will be because the people in control will no longer be in control in the event of an election that goes the wrong way.

I'm reluctant to give a particular conspiracy theory wind, so let's simply assume that there is a secret group consistently controlling what happens in this country, on whatever level suits them and for whatever reason- be it money, power, satanism, whatever floats your boat.

In the 2004 elections, it's demonstrable that Bush and Kerry were both sort of on the same ideological team - skull and bones and all that. You could make an argument that in some sense it was a sham election, because both prospective leaders were supported by this secret cabal, governmental mafia, whatever.

The main reasons for orchestrating a disaster of some kind to allow this to be called into effect, therefore, would be (a) if the power would pass away from this group in the event of an undesirable candidate in the white house or (b) financial/political/power related gain, based in fear mongering, similar to 9/11, which essentially made a specific group of people very rich, as well as allowing a whole bunch of things..

In an ideal situation, you'd benefit in both ways (ideal for the secret cabal, that is).

Remember, you, being in control and liking to stay that way, do not leave things up to chance, you control every possible outcome. You have a timetable, and an agenda, if you're going to subvert the democracy of a country that believes in it's own goodness, you're going to have to be very careful not to set off a tinder box.

Personally, my empirical powers of deduction suggest to me that Clinton will be the next president..

See, G. HW Bush. Clinton. GW Bush. Clinton?

Pretty pattern... leaving you with almost a quarter century of the same two groups in office..



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SHADOW WALKER
Hi ! This is my first post as a new member and this reply is about lil bush proclaiming himself as the protector . If you have noticed , all of a sudden ol' boogeyman bin laden is back in the news supposedly makeing new threats against america and it's interests .Mostly threatening terror strikes inside the U.S. .How conveneate that ubl. pops up when the heat gets turned up on bush and his cohorts !


Bin Laden.. That is one slippery fellow. As Americans we have to be aware of whats happening in the US. Since Bush seems to be so busy on gaining more power.


Shadow Walker welcome to ATS. Look forward on seeing more of your posts.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donoso
I'm more worried about the mainstream media not reporting this issue though. What's up with that? Aren't the citizens of this country PROMISED to know what's going on with their government?


The true concept of fair and balanced disappeared when a very few corporations were allowed to buy up the lion's share of the mainstream media.

So now, for the most part, the 'news' we get is only what they think we're allowed to know or hear. The exception to this is when the masses get upset enough about the pap they are being fed that the media outlets begin to suffer with loss of profit.

When that happens they allow just a little more through, placate the people, and then go back to their regularily 'programed' agenda.

It's been a long time since anything even remotely resembling real news has made it out to the people and on those rare instances the spin machine goes into damage control very quickly and does whatever it can to either discredit it or to label it as 'nutty'.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Yea this has actually been talked about, not sure if it was on here or not but I've heard it mentioned elsewhere and even on the news I believe.
Although there were some fundamental and ideological differences between the Bush and Clinton Teams and are said to be really good family friends by some people.
Yes these were two entirely different people and presidencies but Ive heard that in the grand scheme of things they were on the same page.
For the record; I really liked Bush when he was Governor of Texas, well except for his Mexican Policy which ive always hated.
I dont know wtf hes done with Mexico but its like he owes them something, he wont do the right thing with Mexico for nothing.



Personally, my empirical powers of deduction suggest to me that Clinton will be the next president..

See, G. HW Bush. Clinton. GW Bush. Clinton?

Pretty pattern... leaving you with almost a quarter century of the same two groups in office..


[edit on 5/23/2007 by Kr0n0s]





 
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join