Bush Will Not Declare Martial Law, The USA Economy Will Not Completly Collapse

predictions based on fantasy never come true

Those based on what is happening around you often do come true.

A ) NAU is coming 2010 is the deadline this comes from a meeting held in Quebec Canada by the leaders of the three countries

b ) America is already Bankrupted this is based on the fact they can not pay their debts and manage their fiscal obligations.

C ) whether based on fact or promulgated the fact remains that the only way out for America of the nightmare it faces is the NAU .

d ) look around investigate you will find that America is doomed , this is by design not buy accident

The powers that be know Americans would never give up their constitution
willingly, they have devised a way to make sure there is no alternative.

But do not worry the future is bright Canada has more than enough wealth to prop up America

oil , minerals, forestry , you name they have it. and what is fast becoming the gold of the 21st century they have in spades fresh cool and pure water.

But Americans need to abide by Canadian laws and give up their guns

Oh it wont be debatable those that resist will find themselves boxed in and facing the combined allied forces .
Forget the propaganda you have been taught all your life.
America did not win ww2 it was the allied forces that one it
America hasn't won a war ever to my recollection OK it may be that they won the Civil war but even thats up to debate.
just roll with it ,all will be fine
unless your an American that wears a silly grin salutes the flag, bends over backwards to take it up the rear with a grin, you will be fine.
for those patriots that hold out they will find that they will be on the losing
side and it will be for nothing that they die or go to the REX 84 concentration camps .
You are entering into the North American Union whether you like it or not

"We shall have world government whether you like it or not,what remains to be seen is whether it is by consent or by agression" WArburg

reply to post by tide88

yes but it is The Reconstuction Acts established military rule only during the reconstruction of the southern states UNTIL new governments were formed and they accepted the 14th amendment.

Please point out where in the 14th, the President of the United States ended martial law.

You should also look more closely at how the new southern governments were formed. It was about as Democratic as Hitler telling the German people that they could vote for anyone they liked, so long as it was a Nazi.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

I really dislike bringing up credentials because they mean nothing when both sides are presenting evidence and logic for their arguments, but it gets to the point with you to where you simply dismiss everything as being wrong without evidence.

You should dislike it, because it is irrelevant and I am not impressed. Are you trying to tell me that I should just listen to you because you know everything? I have posted the evidence to support my claim, you have been unable to show how that evidence is false.

If your going to do that, I don't know what else we can rely on except credentials.

Try relying on the truth the next time.

I hope you have some impressive credentials we have not seen.

I'm not here to impress anyone, so I won't go around bragging about credentials. But since you have already announced yours, please feel free to verify your claim. I would like to see your credentials.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

yes but it is The Reconstuction Acts established military rule only during the reconstruction of the southern states UNTIL new governments were formed and they accepted the 14th amendment.

Please point out where in the 14th, the President of the United States ended martial law.

You should also look more closely at how the new southern governments were formed. It was about as Democratic as Hitler telling the German people that they could vote for anyone they liked, so long as it was a Nazi.

President Andrew Johnson stated in presidential proclaimation no 153 that "
"the insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State, as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six.

"And I do further proclaim that the said INSURRECTION IS AT AN END, AND THAT PEACE, ORDER, TRANQUILITY, AND CIVIL AUTHORITY NOW EXIST, IN AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

Matial Law cannot exist where there is civil authoriy or at times of peace. This ends the presidents martial law. Now during the reconstuction acts congress did authorize martial law however it was just for the confederate states during reconstution. President Johnson was against this and actually vetoed the bill www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... however congress voted and overturned his veto establishing the martial rule in those states. It does not say that martial law would end in the 14th amendment nor do I claim it does. I will quote again:

"The Joint Committee then formulated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in order to get around the apparent unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Bill. It passed Congress on the 13th of June and was submitted to the states for ratification. The Amendment defined American citizenship and included Afro-Americans. It provided Federal protection to freedmen whose rights could not now be limited by state governments. Ratification was denied by most of the southern states but was made a requirement for readmission into the Union. Tennessee accepted the amendment but the other southern states awaited the upcoming congressional elections and possibly a more sympathetic congress.


Johnson’s republicans captured a two-thirds majority in both houses, giving the Republican Radicals control over Reconstruction. This was Johnson’s party, but these radicals were much more antagonistic towards the South than he. On March 2, 1867, Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act over Johnson’s veto. Martial law was declared over the former confederate states, which were divided into five regions.


The new requirements for states to be re-admitted to the Union were ratification of the 14th amendment and universal suffrage guaranteeing that Afro-Americans would be given the right and opportunity to vote. In the Omnibus Act, June 22-25, 1868, seven states met the requirements and were readmitted to the Union. These were Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina. Georgia soon returned to military rule when all of the Afro-American representatives were dismissed from the state legislature. It was allowed to return to self-rule only when the state ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing equality for the freed slaves, and allowed the Afro-Americans to return to the house.

You state this was Hitler Like. How so. These people wanted to give right to minorities. Yes they were trying to force them into signing the bill however it was for the greater good for humanity. I do not see how hitler taken away freedoms and killing Jews is anything like trying to give african americans freedoms and voting rights. Regardless they signed the fourteenth amenment and were reinstated to the Union, which ended the martial rule they were under per congress statement. Another way to further prove matial law was no longer is in the above statement "Georgia soon returned to military rule when all of the Afro-American representatives were dismissed from the state legislature. See this statement alone proves matial law was ended in those states previously mentioned (the confederate states) Because it clearly states that Georgia RETURNED TO MARTIAL LAW. You can not return to something if it already exists or has left. You wouldnt return to it if you are already there. And again it doesnt matter how they were formed. They were formed. And any argument that have been made about the 14th amendement have been shot down by the supreme court. And seeing the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the highest power in the land "the constitution" it was all considered constitutional. www.splcenter.org... So for the people who dont like it, it is just too bad. Regarless how much you dislike how it happened it happened. And it happened legally. Now you can argue how you think it was unconstitutional or whatever how ever as far as I know you are not a Supreme Court member. And the fact of the matter is your whole argument( and signiture thread) is based on the fact that we are under Martial law and have been ever since 1863. I know how hard it is to change ones mind, especially when they were positive they were right, as you said before " If one cannot change their opinion based on new information, then they are truly lost in that quest." Well the ball is in your court. Because the info I have provided clearly states that martial law was ended, first by the president who by declaring peace and the restoration of civil authority. Then after martial law was declared for reconstruction for the confederate states it was ended when those confederate states we readmitted to the union.

reply to post by tide88

Matial Law cannot exist where there is civil authoriy or at times of peace.

Despite the Proclomation you cite, civil authority was never restored. The Southern delegations would have had to be returned to Congress, BEFORE any business could be conducted. They were not. Therefore, Congress was still conducting business as a matter of Presidential decree, and not legal civil authority.

For the Presidential proclomation to be binding, Congress would have had to immediately admit the Southern delegations.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

Matial Law cannot exist where there is civil authoriy or at times of peace.

Despite the Proclomation you cite, civil authority was never restored. The Southern delegations would have had to be returned to Congress, BEFORE any business could be conducted. They were not. Therefore, Congress was still conducting business as a matter of Presidential decree, and not legal civil authority.

For the Presidential proclomation to be binding, Congress would have had to immediately admit the Southern delegations.

That is not true. Seeing that 14 members were expelled from congress.
Except for expulsions of southerners loyal to the Confederacy during the Civil War, Congress has rarely used its powerful authority to remove a legislator from office for misconduct. The first expulsion occurred in 1797, when the Senate ousted William Blount of Tennessee for inciting members of two Indian tribes to attack Spanish Florida and Louisiana. The expulsion followed a House vote to impeach Blount—the only time the House, which originates all impeachment proceedings, has ever voted to impeach a senator or representative. The Senate headed off the impeachment proceedings by voting to expel Blount, something the House had no authority to do.

During the Civil War fourteen senators and three representatives were expelled. On a single day, July 11, 1861, the Senate expelled ten southerners for failure to appear in their seats and for participation in secession from the Union. One of the ten expulsions was rescinded after the expelled member's death.

For all further debate regarding "Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States" please refer to this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'




[edit on 7/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Just as I thought. You have no credentials. Your evidence has been debunked, and expert opinion disagrees with you. But that won't stop you...no, you'll just keep posting until everyone else gives up because you are convinced if you flood the boards enough with your posts that people will forget that you've been debunked.

The facts:
- Your evidence has been shown to be wrong, because Marital law was declared unconstitutional.
- At least 3 experts on this have disagreed with you.
- You've created an elaborate begging the question fallacy to make yourself believe you can never be wrong. You do this by ascribing powers to marital law which simply do not exist, making it so powerful that nothing could ever-overturn it.

I'll go on the side of the evidence. As it is always your tactic to get the last word because your convinced this somehow lets you win, you enjoy it.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness



I have officially given up. He actually got me to go to his thread and argue more over there. You should check it out. I made some more points but he again shot them down. I have nothing left in me, however I am posting his theory on some other boards (nonconspriracy and see what kind of response he gets) He states it was never rescinded however president Johnson did just that. Despite the Proclomation you cite, civil authority was never restored. He however states The Southern delegations would have had to be returned to Congress, BEFORE any business could be conducted. They were not. Therefore, Congress was still conducting business as a matter of Presidential decree, and not legal civil authority.
For the Presidential proclomation to be binding, Congress would have had to immediately admit the Southern delegations.
I just dont see if there is anyway to win this argument.

reply to post by tide88


Oh, I know. I took a look at it, same old tactics. Unfortunately with this sort of "I'm going to keep on posting and simply dismissing all evidence until you give up" tactics, he gets lots of points and he usually gets support from a post gang he recruits on these threads (I'm surprised they haven't shown up yet.)

As a final matter of fact, did you note that he keeps acting like there is some difference between "operating under presidential decree" and "operating under civil law"? As the President's power comes directly from the constitution, the Congress is operating under the law in either case. Just another fact that I'm sure will immediately be dismissed. Anyways I'm with you, its like talking to a brick wall.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

Just as I thought. You have no credentials.
thats not debunking thats attacking character
Your evidence has been debunked, and expert opinion disagrees with you.
experts debate this to this day, so since there are also at least 3 experts that disagree with your stance, by your own logic your arguement is 'debunked' also
But that won't stop you...no, you'll just keep posting until everyone else gives up because you are convinced if you flood the boards enough with your posts that people will forget that you've been debunked.
I suppose theyve changed the definition of debunked then...

The facts:
- Your evidence has been shown to be wrong, because Marital law was declared unconstitutional.
- At least 3 experts on this have disagreed with you.
- You've created an elaborate begging the question fallacy to make yourself believe you can never be wrong. You do this by ascribing powers to marital law which simply do not exist, making it so powerful that nothing could ever-overturn it.

I'll go on the side of the evidence.
The evidence that supports your case or his? Since both exist youll have to be more specific.
As it is always your tactic to get the last word because your convinced this somehow lets you win, you enjoy it.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by jprophet420


AH HA! The post gang arrives, right on time. I was wondering where you guys were at. Jack went far too long without coordinated support from a post gang. Usually they arrive as soon as 1 person voices disagreement.

1) Your going to have to read the entire thread before making disparaging remarks about me. We've went full circle: presentation of evidence, refuting of evidence, opinion of experts - all of which stated jack was wrong - and so finally I asked about credentials because I was not sure where else we could go. He presented none, nothing else has any truth to it, and thus I make my conclusions.

2) Find 1 single expert that debates this - someone who actually has credentials in the subject (academic degrees, published articles in peer reviewed sources, etc.) and thinks this theory is correct. Just one. You won't find any, because 'experts' don't debate this. The experts settled it, and the conspiracy theorists keep debating it even though its been settled.




[edit on 20-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


It is about to get real good on the other thread. I just got anothers person response that read his whole theory.. He already said his whole argument is based on a fallacy. Go to the other thread. No wonder he doesnt want me to post it on other boards. Which I didnt. I just quoted and linked it.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by jprophet420

 

AH HA! The post gang arrives, right on time.

I was wondering where you guys were at. Jack went far too long without coordinated support from a post gang. Usually they arrive as soon as 1 person voices disagreement.

1) Your going to have to read the entire thread before making disparaging remarks about me. We've went full circle: presentation of evidence, refuting of evidence, opinion of experts - all of which stated jack was wrong - and so finally I asked about credentials because I was not sure where else we could go. He presented none, nothing else has any truth to it, and thus I make my conclusions.

2) Find 1 single expert that debates this - someone who actually has credentials in the subject (academic degrees, published articles in peer reviewed sources, etc.) and thinks this theory is correct. Just one. You won't find any, because 'experts' don't debate this. The experts settled it, and the conspiracy theorists keep debating it even though its been settled.




[edit on 20-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

I'm the post gang now? I'm not friends with him and I dont ever recall responding to one of his posts.

1. You commited a fallacy, I pointed it out, GG. If that disparages you it should.
2. The Chief financial officer for the Pentagon pointed out this spring that if we did not pull a 180 on finances that we would be in debt that would be impossible to get out of within one year.

I guess the government does whatever it needs/wants to. We end up arguing about predicting the future and then the Style of the governments PR campaigns. Affluent, middle class people will barely notice the changes around them. But many Americans will notice/are noticing. Sort of insidious. We argue about what WILL happen, when it's already happening... weird.
Regardless, this what someone wants you to think is happening:
www.msnbc.msn.com...


reply to post by tide88

There ARE mentally challenged people with MAs. I met one once. English or History, of course.



I try to warn people about this one.
Somehow, some social science classes in western institutions bestows full knowledge of life's great mysteries.

Case: I used tables from a source this one cited to refute his/her point.
User responded by calling my effort "cherry-picking." That type of language is a red flag. One somebody starts arguing about arguing, you know you're wasting time.
Here one of its favorites:
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, despite the fact that it's quick to direct other users to this info, it then categorically does all of these fallible things.
Neurotic as heck. Should be censured just for sucking so bad.




[edit on 20-7-2008 by djerwulfe]

reply to post by jprophet420


What fallacy did I commit? Please point it out. You have pointed out nothing. Please cite your sources, otherwise its just conspiracy rambling.

I love when people start talking about logical fallacies and have no idea what they are talking about. If someone would pay me 10 cents per logical fallacy I found in this thread, I'd be rich.

For example, the above post? Non-sequitur, ignoratio elenchi (red herring), and a hasty generalization fallacy. Usually people who don't like fallacies are the ones using them and not understanding why they matter - if you using a fallacy to make a point, its invalid and you have provided no evidence. You could still be right, but you'll have to make the point not using the fallacy.

Oh, and tide88: Yeah, as I previously pointed out hes created one huge begging the question fallacy by ascribing powers to martial law which do not exist. That way, every time he gets debunked he simply claims that it cant be true because martial law doesn't allow you to over-throw it.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

This whole entire last page has been a slew of personal attacks. If you don't think an argument is getting somewhere, can't you just walk away, or say you'll have to "agree to disagree?"

But no... it's personal attacks. Accusing people of forming (and being in) posting gangs, spilling your little squabble over into other threads, and heck, even forums that the other person isn't a member of (that's a first.)

People use logical fallacies in debates all the time, but usually it's just an accident or a matter of not communicating one's point well. Immaturity is intentional and without excuse.

And listen to me being the hypocrite. But what else can be done? There's no alert buttons for entire pages. I hope a moderator locks this thread so we can all move on and be polite and courteous in future discussions with each other, for the forum's sake.

reply to post by mattifikation


I apologize for my part, but I keep running into this in several threads that I have interest in. Each time an unsuspecting user gets drawn into a circular debate that always ends up like this. Eats up tons of space and I have yet to learn something of interest or value.
What do we have to do to build a case here for abuse, then?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

Matial Law cannot exist where there is civil authoriy or at times of peace.

Despite the Proclomation you cite, civil authority was never restored. The Southern delegations would have had to be returned to Congress, BEFORE any business could be conducted. They were not. Therefore, Congress was still conducting business as a matter of Presidential decree, and not legal civil authority.

For the Presidential proclomation to be binding, Congress would have had to immediately admit the Southern delegations.

Wrong! Again not true. The southern delegations did not have to be readmitted before any business could be attended. They Vacated or resigned their seats when they declared sucession. A vacated seat does not get a vote, and there must be an elected official present to vote. Also a number of senators from the south were expelled, which was done legally (2/3 of the vote. Expulsion has the exact same effect as death or resignation. If the seat is open, it does not get to vote.

Now you have to take into account that only ELECTED present people get to vote. Also empty seats during the civil war were not counted amoung the membership because those southern sen. either were expelled or resigned. Therefor you indeed did have the quorum. Article I, sec 5, cl.1 defines a quorum as a majority of the members of each house. Those members are the elected members who have not be expelled, resigned, or died as pursuant of the same sec cl. 2.
Therefor you whole argument has no basis whatsoever .There was in fact a quorum present, and congress met legally then, and is still meeting legally today.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

That way, every time he gets debunked he simply claims that it cant be true because martial law doesn't allow you to over-throw it.

Well, that really is the whole point isn't it? After all, martial law IS martial law.