It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


'fast special elections' :codeword for coup d'etat?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 06:50 AM
House panel prepares House for catastrophic attack
By Associated Press
Wednesday, January 21, 2004

WASHINGTON - A House committee recommended legislation Wednesday that would provide for fast special elections if a terrorist attack killed or incapacitated many House members.

The measure would require expedited elections under ``extraordinary circumstances'' when the speaker of the House announces that vacancies in the 435-member chamber exceed 100.

The bill, approved 18-10, stipulates that parties choose candidates within 10 days of that announcement and that state elections be held within 45 days.

The legislation has also been approved by the House Administration Committee and now goes to the full House for consideration.

Seems that there are already provisions in place within the framework of our constitution; why this?

Then something I read seemed to answer that for me:

"Now, the Bush-Rove terrorists can't stage another 9-11, a new act of Bush terrorism would lend credibility to his opponents' mantra that we are not safer since Saddam Hussein was 'captured'. So, my thought here on how Bush would be able to kill multiple birds with one stone is for them to stage a biological accident. If Bush allows a bio-accident to occur, Homeland Security can force the country to go to Code Red -- John AshKKKroft's dream -- in fact, soccer moms will *clamor* for it for the safety of their children. Bush can then extend Patriot Acts I, II, with many more unpatriotic acts to follow. Rove can promote Bush's only possible way to get re-s-elected: declare that we cannot have a change in leadership as it is not the time to change horses (or, in Bush's case, horse's ass) in the middle of the stream.

There is no way on God's green earth that Karl Rove will let the Idiot Usurper debate *any* Democratic candidate three nights in a row on national television, and Rove can't 'Wellstone' all of them. In a time of 'crisis', Bush would have 'no time' to debate. An unexpected bonus in the whole situation for Bush would be a windfall for his pharmaceutical paymasters, with people rushing to get vaccines that don't work, much like the media-hyped flu vaccine."

[Edited on 23-1-2004 by Bout Time]

posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 06:56 AM
January 15, 2004 -- STEVEN Brill had a summit meeting of TV anchormen and their bosses over dinner at his Fifth Avenue apartment on Tuesday night with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to discuss how they'll cover the next terrorist attack. Brill, whose book "After" detailed the response to 9/11, spearheads the America Prepared Campaign to educate the public. Joining Brill, his wife Cynthia and two of their three kids for dinner were Fox News Channel boss Roger Ailes, ABC News prexie David Westin, CBS News chief Andrew Heyward, CNN anchor Aaron Brown, plus Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw.

Conspiracy corroborated on the gossip know we're in a fascist state, right?

posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 06:58 AM
What provision are there in the framework of the Constitution?

Isn't the alternative to elections executive rule and perhaps martial law?

I would of thought quick elections would be preferable.

posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 08:11 AM
The sitting state govenor appoints a replacement(s).


posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 11:16 PM
It doesn't pay to kick a skunk...

posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 01:13 AM
Interesting points there, a bio-terror "attack" could trigger exactly the type of actions you put forward. However, I still think that rather than commit 9-11 by his own hand, Bush wilfully allowed the attack to occour. Read the "Operation Ignore" chapter in Franken's new book and the terrorism chapter in Carville's new book for some good arguments are a bit too long and numerous to list here.

Something that has aways been of interest to me in the whole terrorism war thing has been the Anthrax Letters. Personally if I were a terrorist trying to cause panic after 9-11 and I just happened to have some good quality Anthrax on hand, I wouldn't waste it by sending it to individuals. We saw how infectious that stuff can be in just cutaneous form (through cuts on the hands) so why then, if it was a real terrorist and not someone else, wouldn't they have gone for the most massive attack they could dream up, that would do the most dammage? If they really wanted to hurt the US economy, they could have dusted some $20 bills in the stuff, everyone would be afraid of their money, which would be much more devistating than making everyone afraid of the US Postal Service. And didn't we trace that Anthrax back to a US lab at some point?
Just makes ya think

top topics

log in