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.

 

Is voting important?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
In a few weeks we in the U S will once again go to the polls and vote for those whom we wish to lead and represent us at various levels of our government. I have heard some people ask "if there is really a need in going to vote?"

All I can say to them is; "YES!" and it gets more important with every passing election.

At this time I would like to bring up some documentation about a little discussed matter of the continuation of government of our country. If the current trend is allowed to continue we may well see the end of democracy within our life times. It may appear that I am attempting to scare someone by saying this. Well if that is what it takes to get the American people to realize the position we are in; then so be it.

As it now stands, the United States of America is but one executive order from losing our democratic-republic form of government forever.

We are literally one stroke of the pin from having a dictator take all of our freedoms away.

If we are not vigilant in choosing those whom we elect to these high offices, Presidential and Congressional, we could well live to regret the choices we make. We should not only be aware of those who wish to be elected to national offices but also to those who wish to "serve" us in any lesser capacities.

As it is now set-up, our present President or the next or the next could institute a national emergency of sufficient magnitude which would allow them to declare martial law. Under the articles of the Continuation of Government they could then sieze all power over the U S. Please note that both major political parties have contributed to this situation and I am not saying which, if either party, would be more inclined to take the final step. I am concerned more about such actions being made possible.

On it's face, this may not seem to be very much; but, look closely and concider the possibilities.

Historical Roots of the Continuation of Government Authority
COG is then defined as:

"a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency."

COG roots go back to the June 1947 National Security Act (as amended) that merged the Departments of War and Navy into the National Military Establishment (NME), including a separate Department of the Air Force headed by a Secretary of Defense - in August 1949, NME renamed the Department of Defense.

In the early 1950s, Truman approved construction of a massive 200,000 square foot underground facility along the Maryland - Pennsylvania border, 65 miles north of Washington. Officially called the Alternate Joint Communications Center (Site-R at Raven Rock), it was one of 96 Federal Relocation Centers (or Federal Relocation Arc) around the nation's capital for government and Pentagon use in case of nuclear war.

On December 1, 1950, Truman's EO 10186 established the Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCD
A) within the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), to oversee federal emergency planning.

On December 16, 1950, EO 10193 created the Office of Defense Mobilization (ODM), to mobilize civilians, industries, and government agencies to defend the nation in an emergency. Other measures followed to establish procedures under emergency conditions if the country was attacked.

On April 17, 1952, Truman's EO 10346 ordered the FCDA to coordinate "continuity" plans within the federal government in case of nuclear war.

On July 1, 1958, Reorganization Plan No. 1 merged the FCDA and ODM into the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization (OCDM), to ensure continuation of essential government and industry functions under national emergency conditions.

On October 28, 1969, Nixon's EO 11490 directed government officials to ensure the continuation of "essential functions" in case of an emergency. It also directed department heads to develop succession of office plans, overseen by the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) - called a thin line between government and dictatorship, according to some.

In 1970, future Reagan administration FEMA head, Louis O. Giuffrida, advocated martial law in case of mass civil unrest, specifically recommending placing millions of "American negroes" in "assembly centers or relocation camps."

On May 5, 1972, the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) became the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (DCPA) to "provide preparedness assistance planning in all areas of civil defense and natural disasters."

In March 1976, The Progressive published an article about Mount Weather, a secret underground facility, 50 miles north of Washington, to house a parallel executive branch ready to take over government under emergency conditions.

On April 1, 1979, FEMA was established to oversee federal planning for natural disasters, including nuclear and terrorist attacks. Purportedly to help victims, it, in fact, serves federal authorities, including administering continuity measures if needed. Its Office of National Continuity Programs (NCP) is the "Lead Agent for the Federal Executive Branch on matters concerning continuity of national operations under the gravest of conditions."

On September 14, 1982, Ronald Reagan's (secret) National Security Decision Directive/NSDD 55 established a National Program Office (NPO), tasked with ensuring the federal government's survive in case of a national emergency, specifically a nuclear attack.

In 1988, Reagan's Executive Order 12656 authorized a COG response, including full-scale militarization in case of a "national security emergency," defined as:

"Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

The policy remained largely in place under GHW Bush's April 1990 National Security Directive (NSD) 37, June 1992 NSD 69 (both titled Enduring Constitutional Government), and Bill Clinton's October 1998 Presidential Decision Directive/National Security Council (PDD/NSC) 67, titled Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations, stating:

It "relates to enduring constitutional government, continuity of operations (COOP) planning, and continuity of government (COG) operations....to ensure survival of a constitutional form of government and the continuity of essential Federal functions."

On 9/11, from 9:45 - 9:56AM EDT, NSC counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke activated COG, ordering all federal agencies "to activate an alternative command post, an alternative headquarters outside of Washington, DC, and to staff it as soon as possible."

In addition, key officials went to secure locations, including Dick Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and other Republican and Democrat leaders, after which a "shadow government" was formed, perhaps still in ready to be reactivated under emergency conditions.

According to the 9/11 Commission, it was without elaboration, but consider what followed - an array of police state actions by Executive Orders (EOs), National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, legislation, and other disturbing measures, targeting designated domestic and foreign adversaries, dissent, civil liberties, human rights, and other democratic freedoms, including an assault on the Bill of Rights. What followed included:

-- the October 8, 2001 Executive Order (EO) 13228 establishing two Executive agencies: the Office of Homeland

Security (OHS) "to develop and implement a national strategy to coordinate federal, state, and local counterterrorism efforts to secure the country from and respond to terrorist threats or attacks and the Homeland;" Security Council (HSC) "to advise the President on homeland security matters, mirroring the role the National Security Council (NSC) plays in national security;"

-- the October 2001 USA Patriot Act, eroding First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections, including free association, due process, freedom from illegal searches and seizures, and privacy; the crime of "domestic terrorism" was also established, thereafter targeting animal and environmental activists and other US citizens; in February 2010, Obama extended the law with little notice;

-- the November 2001 Military Order Number 1, authorizing the president to capture, kidnap or otherwise arrest non-citizens (and later citizens) anywhere in the world for any reason, and detain them indefinitely without charge, evidence, due process or judicial fairness protections of law;

-- in April 2002, the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was established, militarizing the homeland for the first time, authorizing federal troops in American communities in case of emergencies, including terrorist attacks and civil unrest;

-- the November 2002 Homeland Security Act (HSA), creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), combining previously separate federal agencies under one authority to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies and give Washington new police state powers; the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is its largest investigative and enforcement arm, targeting suspected criminal and terrorist threats, including undocumented immigrants by their presence, treating them repressively like common criminals;

-- the October 2006 Military Commissions Act authorized torture and sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, and prosecute alleged suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), detain them indefinitely in military prisons, and deny them habeas and other legal protections;

-- in October 2006, provisions in Sections 333 and 1076 of the FY 2007 Defense Authorization Act amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting federal or National Guard troops use for law enforcement unless congressionally authorized in emergencies like an insurrection; now the president can claim a public emergency, declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and deploy military forces on US streets, including to suppress dissent;

-- extrajudicial domestic surveillance became institutionalized;

-- a vast, secret offshore gulag was established, besides the few known ones at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and Afghanistan;

-- indefinite preventive detentions were authorized for persons who can't be prosecuted, yet are claimed (without
evidence) to endanger America;

-- torture became official policy;

-- In January 2009, HR 645: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act was introduced, referred to
committee, but thus far not passed "To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency
centers on military installations," six in major regions, modeled on Guantanamo, militarizing FEMA to run them; and
-- various other measures were enacted, hardening repressive domestic rule, heading for extrajudicial martial law to quell expected or ongoing civil disturbances.
If exercised, presidents may:
-- seize property;
-- organize and control the means of production;
-- seize commodities;
-- deploy military forces abroad and now at home;
-- declare martial law;
-- seize and control all transportation, communications, and commerce;
-- restrict travel, and
-- in most ways control the lives of US citizens, including arresting and detaining them.

COG authority is renewed annually. Thus, on September 10, 2009, the White House extended the Bush administration's 9/11 national emergency, a press release saying:

"CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS

Consistent with sections 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2009. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency the former President declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

White House officials draw "no distance between their own policies and those left behind by the Bush administration." The White House said only that current policy is "settled." In other words, the plan, like the "war on terror," is open-ended, in violation of the Constitution's Separation of Powers, the document George Bush called "just a goddamn piece of paper," and governed accordingly throughout his tenure, a practice Obama continues.

Other Obama-Declared National Emergencies

Remember last year's Swine Flu "threat." The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global pandemic affecting "as many as two billion people (over) the next two years," calling the virus "unstoppable." It was falsified hype. Yet, on April 26, 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a "Determination that a Public Emergency Exists," and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano "issued a public health emergency declaration" on April 27.

Then on October 24, Obama declared a "National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic," although none existed. Though none of what was feared happened, it gave Washington, state and local governments unprecedented power to order mass inoculations, those refusing subject quarantines, fines, or imprisonment.

In June 2010, S. 3480: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act was introduced, referred to committee, approved unanimously, but so far not enacted. Called an Internet Kill Switch bill, it empowers the president (on national security grounds) to shut down the Internet, disconnect its networks, and force web sites, blogs, providers, search engines and software companies to "immediately comply with any (DHS) emergency measure or action," or face fines or closure.

In other words, on the pretext of a national emergency, true or false, the Executive may shut down the media's last free and open space, quashing First Amendment freedoms, Obama in May 2009 saying:
"In this information age, one of your greatest assets - in our case, our ability to communicate to a wide range of supporters through the Internet - could also be one of your greatest vulnerabilities, (adding that) America's economic prosperity....depend(s) on cybersecurity, (at the same time claiming) Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups (might) unleash a cyber attack on our country (by) a few key strokes on a computer - a weapon of mass destruction."




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
i would say feeling involved is important. not so much the voting. voting was put in place because someone had the thoughtful acknowledgement that people werent making it their business to be involved. so they gave us voting.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I stopped voting after the Bush/Kerry Flordia recount scandal election.

I voted for Bush in that election. Something stunk so bad to me after that, so much that I lost most of my faith in the system's integrity.

Do I believe it is important to vote? Yeah, I still do, I just only vote on local measures.

Good research in the thread, thanks for your time.


edit on 14-9-2010 by sticky because: I like edting my posts!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I vote in every election for "None of the above" by staying home.

My vote makes no differance to anyone anywhere. I get no glorious ego boost by contributing to a broken system. If the government jumps the shark, I will deal with it. Till then, I will live my life with my eyes open.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


With midterm elections fast approaching, this thread deserves more attention. A star and flag to you.

The question of this thread is a question that pessimists would have a negative answer to and optimists would have a positive one. Voting is very important in a civilized society on the basis that it settles arguments that otherwise would lead to escalated anger between two factions and/or even leading to violence.

To settle a dispute, two opposing views must give their pros and cons of an argument to an audience, the audience in this case being the voting population. After arguments are given, a decision is made by the voters on which view would either benefit or be detrimental to them. This holds true in a true democracy, something that the United States is slowly slipping away from.

Take for instance California's Proposition 19. This proposition legalizes marijuana, up to an ounce, if it passes. The pros and cons of this proposition are still making their arguments. Either way the vote goes, the losers will not accept the outcome. They will appeal and protest and make a spectacle of the situation when users and non-users both know that marijuana affects a persons ability to function properly.

Stoners will say it's their right and non-users will say they have a right to life without having to be stressed out over the actions of people high on pot. It's going to be an ongoing debate for generations to come until stoners get their way, despite the safety and well-being of others in society.

Sorry to take this thread off on a tangent. I was just trying to clarify the importance of voting. When there comes a day that votes don't appeal to the rights of everyone, then a division is produced between the people and this can lead to a revolution as it did in the late 18th century in North America and is happening right before our very eyes today.

Is voting important? My answer to that is it is very important. Whether the outcome is in your favor or not, this society has given you the opportunity to express your voice when it comes to making major decisions that affect your everyday life.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


No you think by voting you have a say, but in reality you dont, its just there to uphold your slavery. Only the elite since the beginning have the only say in how the country and the world will be run. Not you, them. I dont believe in de'mock'racy and free'dumb' doesnt really exist whislt you are on this planet. Very good research though star and flag for that.

Regards, Naeem



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I do not vote. I am not going to pretend that this system is safe and sound and secure from disease; this System is designed to bleed us at this point and it has a sickness within!

Let it go People! Let America fall away into a faded memory of "what once was"; from the ashes, like the Phoenix, a brighter, far more Nurturing Future can unfold. Otherwise, we will be stuck as we are now, re-electing the same criminals with different names and most times across Party lines.

Let it go! Do not Vote, don't even show support, pull your funds, pull your endorsements and fall away from the Menace we call Bureaucracy.

It is time to see Babylon for what she has become. It is time to fall away from her. In time, she will re-awaken, a New America will emerge.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Never too early to remind folks.

This midterm, to coin a phrase, is the most important election of our lifetimes. The direction of our nations future are the stakes...at the state and local level we are electing representatives to seats in the Senate, and the House of Representatives. These will be the voices that either represent your views, or the voices the represent the other guy, or a mixture of both.

Whether you agree with the current political direction, or disagree... Matters not, so long as you voice your opinion by voting. ...and no, not voting isn't voicing an opinion, it's something like moral cowardice, IMHO.

We all see problems within, and without, the system...how does staying home help repair the damages of years of apathy on the part of others?

A nation that prides itself on it's freedoms should do better than a fifty percent turnout at the polls, don't you think?

Apathy is the greatest danger facing us today. Not Islamic terrorism. Not neo-conservatism. Or any other breed of political grandstanding. It's the apathy of the common American voter, or non voter.

My vote doesn't count. My vote doesn't matter. It's all rigged. It's this... Or, it's that... All phrases, or parts of phrases used to excuse our apathy and cowardice. It's oh so much easier to sit it out and blame the people who are actually helping make the decisions, isn't it?

Oh, I didn't vote, it's not my fault...

Bull. Lack of involvement doesn't abrogate your responsibility as a citizen in the slightest. It just exposes you as a coward. You are, by not voting, denying the very freedoms set forth by our ancestors in that little document called the Constitution. You are allowing other people, who might not be the most altruistic of folks, to make your decisions for you.

Vote. Partake in the experiment that is America. Let your voice be heard. Help others get their voices heard. Involvement in the system changes the system. Ignoring it, hoping it'll go away just acerbates the problem, and does nothing to solve it.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I don't vote. I've not voted since 1988 and don't plan to resume the practice. My sense is that you are choosing one form of organized corruption over another. Does that give me less of a right to complain about the state of affairs? I suspose it does.

The fact is that the elected officials don't matter. The entrenched congressional staffers, who many of which have been there for decades are what matter and they are not going anywhere. They are the folks who write the bills. They are the folks who tell the elected person how to vote. They are the folks who go from committee staff to congressional staff to lobbying firm back to committee staff to a job in the executive branch and back and forth they go. They are the folks with the real juice. The faceless people who have a far greater vested interest in maintaining the status quo than an elected official who, by virtue of getting elected and holding a post on a key committee can roll out of congress and land a sweet job in the private sector. Rahm Emmanuel is a classic example. Ward politics in Chicago then on to Congress. Drops out of congress to work on Wall Street and makes $16M in three years. Back to work on BOs campaign and on to Chief of Staff. Now on to Mayor of Chicago, where he will make some serrious dough. Guys like him are the problem, not the joker you are voting for.

I also am not interested in jury duty.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Oh, I didn't vote, it's not my fault...

Bull. Lack of involvement doesn't abrogate your responsibility as a citizen in the slightest. It just exposes you as a coward. You are, by not voting, denying the very freedoms set forth by our ancestors in that little document called the Constitution. You are allowing other people, who might not be the most altruistic of folks, to make your decisions for you.


I strongly disagree with this. I have not seen a single candidate that I have truely believed not only WANTS to make real changes, but also CAN make real changes -- ever. I refuse to participate in a broken system. I vote by not voting. That's my voice speaking in the most accurate method I know.

It doesn't matter if "they" ignore it or misconstrue the meaning... "they" would do that anyway.



You are allowing other people, who might not be the most altruistic of folks, to make your decisions for you.


Yeah..that's my view of Congress, too.


edit on 9-14-2010 by rogerstigers because: additional thoughts



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
In the 1970s when i was a teen i was hired with some other teens to carry locked and tagged silver suitcases with county voting ballots from cars and vans into the county courthouse complex. This was in one of the wealthiest counties in America. We were given very strict instructions about who, how, and what to identify on the boxes and told to carry them to a specific room in the county complex. We were told not to alter or deviate from our instructions, and to notify one of the authorities in charge of us if anyone said to do something different.

About half-way through the night i was told to start bringing the cases to a different room. i refused and sought out the man in charge to ask about the change in plans, just as i had been instructed to do. He said, definately No, we were only to follow the original guidlines, so i proceeded to do as i was told.

i noticed some of the other guys carrying cases to the new room and i told them we weren't supposed to be doing that as i had already asked about it. Another person in charge came after awhile and instructed me to follow the new plan, when i questioned him saying i already was told by another man in charge not to deviate, i was allowed to carry in one more case and was then told i wasn't needed anymore and could go home. The next day while talking to one of the other teens they said that they had worked into the early morning and he asked why i left so early. Ever since then i have been suspicious of voting. Now-a-days, with hanging chads, and hacked diebold systems it seems like everything is "same as it ever was".

Years later as an adult, i worked for a very large company that hired the young adult children of many politicians.
i never seen any of these people at work except on payday, or once in awhile on the company golfcourse.
i befriended one of these guys who was getting over 65 hours a week, and he used to laugh about how he in total might have put in a few hours a month (we were Teamsters). He acted as if i was just naive and dumb...

PS. as side note: As a kid, when i ran for student council of my highschool, i won by having my friends stuff the ballot boxes and stand next to the polling booths intimidating fellow students. By the way i grew up in the Chicago suburbs.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Reading your post brought back an old memory.

It was fairly well documented at the time. Would you believe that when Rhodesia was remaned and they held a fully democratic vote for all it's citizens, no less than 114% of the registered voters showed up at the polls. This may not be a record but it is a darn good average.

Some times I think it would be a good idea to tie the reception of a social security check to the recipiants voting record. Not who they voted for , but the fact of their going out and casting a vote.


edit on 14-9-2010 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by seagull
 

Some times I think it would be a good idea to tie the reception of a social security check to the recipiants voting record. Not who they voted for , but the fact of their going out and casting a vote.


I would go for that. And if I do not vote, then no social security taxes are withdrawn from my paycheck during that election cycle.



edit on 9-14-2010 by rogerstigers because: cleaned up extra stuff in quote



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I remember hearing that too, now that you remind me... Hell of a turnout, no?

Does this mean we're old?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Not exactly what I had in mind but, if you promise you will but the same amount into the stock market I guess we could give you a pass. Just don't come to me when your account is closed and the broker leaves town.

I would think someone else had heard of Bernie "Made off".



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


Why couldn't I use the money to "stimulate the economy" or better yet, provide for my family? Maybe spend it on a small garden in my back yard and reducing my dependancy on the central electric grid?

There are lots of better ways that one can contribute to their community and to the country aside from voting for the lesser of two evils


edit on 9-14-2010 by rogerstigers because: additional thoughts



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Recently we've seen alot of coverage in the MSM about how incumbents are being defeated by little known politicians. Remember the bruhaha when Scott Brown won? People in the MSM and press are talking about how the American people are angry and turning against incumbents. Where did they get that idea? From people making a statement by staying home and not voting? Of course not. By people voting outside the predicted surveys. If people everywhere began switching their enrollment to Independent and voting against all incumbents, all Republicans and all Democrats TPTB would sit up and take notice. It doesn't matter who gets eloected. Surely you MUST have figured that out by now. The whole idea is to collectively do something really unusual at the polls. There is precisiou little else we can do.

Or, alternatively, you can take a big gulp of the koolaide and convince yourself that 'your' party will make everything right in November. I gaurantee you we'll be back at this nonsense by Spring. Your voice does matter. It does count. We've been screwed, systematically lied to and sold down the river. Time to throw a wrench in their machine and screw with them a bit. I mean really, what does it take? Anyone who was aware in the sixties KNOWS what can be accomplished. Yea, the system is fracked. So lets put their face in it and see what happens. Should be good for a hoot.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sticky
I stopped voting after the Bush/Kerry Flordia recount scandal election.

I voted for Bush in that election. Something stunk so bad to me after that, so much that I lost most of my faith in the system's integrity.

Do I believe it is important to vote? Yeah, I still do, I just only vote on local measures.

Good research in the thread, thanks for your time.


edit on 14-9-2010 by sticky because: I like edting my posts!



Nice job me.. Bush/Gore anyone?? oops!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Every year it is the same. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When has voting ever changed that? How often have people voted for someone in full confidence that things would finally change for the better and it didn't?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I see right through all the people there are to vote for. Since I was old enough to vote. Never have voted.
Things just get worse so I don't see that ever happening. Why dishonor those that were worth voting for?
I just can't vote for any of the pieces of she-ot they oiffer. All garbage.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join