Thread: Bush Seizes Control Over State Militias

Originally Posted by Rockfish

CrocketsGhost wrote

..It has mastered the art of glacial incrementalism, which is the old "frog in a pot" scenario whereby the water is heated so slowly that the frog never leaps out.

It would not be so wise to pass judgement about this..things are beginning to happen real fast..faster than ever before

[quote:2p4ieo1g]Believe me when I tell you that you don't want to know the miserably low percentage of people who actually act.

Come on, Crocket! There is alot of fine upstanding patriots who would act if pushed into a corner, I know I would. No one can expect the public to accept what's being ram-roded down their throats and go quietly into the night..to fade away as our elites would like us to. Yes, we need to get the word out about what is happening to this country!

You will notice that while I remain cynical, I do not stop trying.

I don't care how cynical you become.. ..just as long as you DON'T stop trying! [/quote:2p4ieo1g]
Rockfish, I am going to tell you something that you should not dismiss: You and many others here see things happening "real fast" because you are rightly worked up over an issue that is important to you. But every generation has its crisis-level issues that somehow end up being forgotten as we sheople adjust to our new shackles. Ten years ago there was a whole other set of rapidly evolving threats to our liberties (the assault rifle bans and Brady Bill, NAFTA, the Clinton adminsitration's deferring time and time again to global government in the form of the UN, etc. Because the natives got REALLY riled, the gun laws were softened. Because anti-globalists got really angry over the appearance that the UN was going to gain superiority over home rule, the Bush admin. distanced from the world body. NAFTA, on the other hand, was ramrodded through. There were some wins and losses. Ten years before that there were a whole other set of problems (the New World Order as enunciated by daddy Bush, the takeover of the savings and loan industry, illegal military operations like Iran-Contra and the associated narcotics for guns for slush funds schemes that allowed guys like Clinton and his cronies to get obscenely wealthy). Ten years before that it was Nixon separating us from the gold standard and authoring EOs that gave the Presidency unprecedented powers. Ten years before that the government was killing its own, gunning down ctizens at Kent State, undermining the state constitutions with blanket revisions in pretty much every state designed to accommodate a total undermining of Common Law and replacing it with the UCC, an elimination of silver money, etc. Ten years before that it was the rapid growth of the MIC and the assassination of foreign leaders. Ten years before that it was the creation of the UN and the setting up of the early stages of the global system. ten years before that it was the treason of FDR, who stole all our gold and gave it to the private banks, eliminated our former legal system (substantive due process) and replaced it with commercial law, converted most Americans into chattel with the SSN, etc.

I could name at least four or more major crises in each decade that had one or another group of concerned citizens certain that a major move was imminent. But our enemies are far smarter than that. They will take things as far as they can without getting the majority mad enough to act, just as they have masterfully done for well over a century.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

I have a question for JP: Do you understand the difference between the Executive and Legislative branches of government? I ask because Congress passed the law you are railing against, yet you ascribe the policy to the machinations of the President.

Of course I know the difference; we supposedly have three branches, Executive, Judicial and Legislative so that there are checks and balances in place. Bush however who graduated from a prestigious school with a C- may not.

Now I wonder why you asked me such a question because I only posted the article, I didn’t write it. Perhaps you need to direct your question to Kavan Peterson the writer of the article.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

I have a question for JP: Do you understand the difference between the Executive and Legislative branches of government? I ask because Congress passed the law you are railing against, yet you ascribe the policy to the machinations of the President.

Of course I know the difference; we supposedly have three branches, Executive, Judicial and Legislative so that there are checks and balances in place. Bush however who graduated from a prestigious school with a C- may not.

Now I wonder why you asked me such a question because I only posted the article, I didn’t write it. Perhaps you need to direct your question to Kavan Peterson the writer of the article.

I asked you precisely because you did see fit to post it, and you chose to apply to it your own title accusing Bush as well as your own prologue stating:

Centralized, paternalistic government was a bad Soviet Communist idea, so why does AWOL Bush favor it?

So your commentary takes an article that points out that CONGRESS passed this legislation extending the number of circumstances under which the federal government may take control of the state militias (the Guard) and converted it into an indictment of the President. You compound your error and demonstrate your prejudice by stating as fact an unproven charge that the Bush was "AWOL." Now you try to blame the author of the article for your own rhetorical excesses when challenged on it. Do you think that's fair? Do you think that's a proper response to my question as to why you are trying to blame the President for a law that went through the process of being authored, submitted, passed through committee, then voted on and passed by both chambers of Congress?

Crockett, Please see this link:
http://www.progress.org/2007/ussr03.htm

Again, all I did was post the story in full.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Crockett, Please see this link:
http://www.progress.org/2007/ussr03.htm

Again, all I did was post the story in full.

Okay, the manner in which the article is presented made it look like the prologue was separate from the article. My apologies for confusing the commentary. But now I will get back to the heart of the matter:

Why did you post the article? Do you agree with it? Do you believe that its attempt to tar the President for an act of Congress is fair or even honest? You offer no contrary commentary and appear to be defending the article, so I believe that all my previous challenges are still valid. Are they not?

BTW - The site that you linked to is operated by the Benjamin Banneker Center for Economic Justice and Progress. Among other things that the group advocates is a "citizen dividend." While the thing is gussied up to look really attractive, it is nothing more than a description of communism in which all share equally in the common wealth. Scary. It's also interesting that an author writing an article on such a site ostensibly decries "centralized, paternalistic government" as a bad Soviet Communist idea when the same group is pushing for communistic distribution of wealth. In light of that, his comment at the beginning of the article should be read more as, "Centralized, paternalistic government was a bad Soviet Communist idea," as though it were one of the bad one out of many good ones.

Why did you post the article? Do you agree with it? Do you believe that its attempt to tar the President for an act of Congress is fair or even honest? You offer no contrary commentary and appear to be defending the article, so I believe that all my previous challenges are still valid. Are they not?

Why did you post the article? Because the headline got my attention as did the content and I thought that perhaps others might like to know about it.

Do you agree with it? Not Completely

Do you believe that its attempt to tar the President for an act of Congress is fair or even honest? I do not think it is an attempt to tar Bush. Changing the insurrection act so that Bush has control was an idiotic move by the members of congress that voted for it. I do wonder what they were promised by Bush for voting yes on it. Just like they were with CAFTA.

There isn’t any question that Bush is a wannabe dictator, he said so himself. He is one of the few Presidents to have come this close thus far. Will he succeed? I guess time will tell.


I think the article explicates the fact that this was a congressional vote and the powers that have been given to the president as a result.

I haven’t looked into the site itself, but I will look into when I get a chance.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Why did you post the article? Do you agree with it? Do you believe that its attempt to tar the President for an act of Congress is fair or even honest? You offer no contrary commentary and appear to be defending the article, so I believe that all my previous challenges are still valid. Are they not?

Why did you post the article? Because the headline got my attention as did the content and I thought that perhaps others might like to know about it.

Do you agree with it? Not Completely

Do you believe that its attempt to tar the President for an act of Congress is fair or even honest? I do not think it is an attempt to tar Bush.(???) Changing the insurrection act so that Bush has control was an idiotic move by the members of congress that voted for it. I do wonder what they were promised by Bush for voting yes on it. Just like they were with CAFTA.

There isn’t any question that Bush is a wannabe dictator, he said so himself. He is one of the few Presidents to have come this close thus far. Will he succeed? I guess time will tell.


I think the article explicates the fact that this was a congressional vote and the powers that have been given to the president as a result.

I haven’t looked into the site itself, but I will look into when I get a chance.

Wow. I almost wish you had not bothered to respond, but I will bear your responses to these questions in mind the next time I am tempted to engage you in debate.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... nd.01.html

http://www.newsgateway.ca/bush_dictator.htm

Originally Posted by jp_48504

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

http://www.newsgateway.ca/bush_dictator.htm

Yeah, that's some serious evidence. What's next, are you going to use one of Giuliani's SNL appearances for a quote against him? Sheesh!