Congressman denied Post-attack Continuity Plans chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Congressman denied Post-attack Continuity Plans

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Congressman denied Post-attack Continuity Plans Posted: 7/22/2007 2:57:26 PM
This is a bit freaky people. If you know what a false flag operation is then you'll know that this is what happens after a "terrorist" attack - The continuity of government (or shadow government). (FROM WIKIPEDIA) A shadow government is a "government-in-waiting" that remains in waiting with the intent to take control of the government in response to some event. Also, the term "shadow government" can be used loosely to refer to a guerrilla-force that controls and administers the majority of the physical area of a country, rendering the official national government significantly less able to administer its policies. Some consider the current strength of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the New People's Army to be to this degree. In nations with less apparent strife, there are several safeguards in place in the event of a disaster strong enough to disrupt the functioning of the government. The United States has Continuity of Operations Plan, Continuity of Government and the presidential line of succession plans. Man this is some freaky stuff - look for a rough ride in the next few months. Call me a conspiracy theorist, and I'll call you a non-thinking monkey. source: http://www.newhouse.com/congressman-denied-access-to-post-attack-government-continuity-plans.html By JEFF KOSSEFF Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. (Photo by Faith Cathcart)c.2007 Newhouse News Service WASHINGTON — Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack. As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom'' in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents. On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED. "I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,'' DeFazio said. Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why. "We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,'' DeFazio said. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.'' Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: "We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive.'' Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he ``cannot think of one good reason'' to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee. "I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,'' Ornstein said. This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents. "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right,'' DeFazio said. (Jeff Kosseff can be contacted at jeff.kosseff(at)newhouse.com)

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

conservatives on rise in western wold.. Posted: 6/2/2007 11:27:31 PM
It's trouble - any way you slice it. Do some research on this here: www.infowars.com www.prisonplanet.tv Don't listen to poorly placed arguments about it, just check it out for yourselves.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

France is getting a bad rap for nothing Posted: 5/29/2007 8:52:08 PM
I like France, too bad they got the new guy Sarkozy as President. He is a New World Order puppet and French people are pissed. I feel for the French people. I wish we could help them there but we have our own puppets here. France was there for us in the battle for Independence. Neocons love to bash French people. I can't stand a non-thinking arrogant stagnant person without compassion.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

Ok, hit me with it Posted: 1/5/2007 8:47:29 PM
OK, I haven't been here in a while, so be nice. I'd like some critique as well.. Merry new Year. JP

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 6 (view)

Historic changes possible in military's role in domestic emergencies Posted: 9/25/2005 9:04:43 PM
Doesn't anyone think anymore? This topic is NOT about Katrina relief - which should have been much much better BTW. When we abolish the passe' comitatus act we are asking for tyranny. No longer is there a separation between informaiton and enforcement of local police and federal officials. We have US troops policing a free society under a guise of an "emergency". The problem is rarely in history when citizens willingly give away their freedom for security - do they ever get them back. In response to the military presence in the Southern States during the Reconstruction Era, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act[1] ("PCA" or the "Act") to prohibit the use of the Army in civilian law enforcement. The Act embodies the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority and currently forbids the use of the Army and Air Force to enforce civilian laws.[2] In the last fifteen years, Congress has deliberately eroded this principle by involving the military in drug interdiction at our borders.[3] This erosion will continue unless Congress renews the PCA's principle to preserve the necessary and traditional separation of civilian and military authority. http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

Historic changes possible in military's role in domestic emergencies Posted: 9/24/2005 10:22:19 PM
The Gov of Louisiana dropped the ball... so it may have been a good thing had Bush taken control. That's the rumor. At least what CNN, Fox and ABC affiliated are cramming down our throats. No 5 days is too long for any president to not DO SOMETHING - on Katrina I mean.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Historic changes possible in military's role in domestic emergencies Posted: 9/24/2005 10:12:20 PM
MY TAKE ON THIS IS AN ATTEMPT To SUSPEND PASSE' COMANTATUS TO BRING MARTIAL LAW TO AMERICA. The following story is very significant in that it is talk of an attempt to suspect the Passe' Comantatus Act (the separation of police and military and the protection of federal troops on US soil). DO something to stop this. Remember the Illuminati/Freemason Motto : "ORDER OUT OF CHAOS" - create enough chaos and people will beg for your order. Historic changes possible in military's role in domestic emergencies TO SEE FULL TEXT GO HERE: AP http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-17-katrina-military_x.htm In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush's push to give the military a bigger role in responding to major disasters like Hurricane Katrina could lead to a loosening of legal limits on the use of federal troops on U.S. soil. A military truck moves along a street in the Ninth Ward area of New Orleans. Pentagon officials may loosen limits on the military's domestic role. By Ric Francis, AP Pentagon officials are reviewing that possibility, and some in Congress agree it needs to be considered. Bush did not define the wider role he envisions for the military. But in his speech to the nation from New Orleans on Thursday, he alluded to the unmatched ability of federal troops to provide supplies, equipment, communications, transportation and other assets the military lumps under the label of "logistics." The president called the military "the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." At question, however, is how far to push the military role, which by law may not include actions that can be defined as law enforcement — stopping traffic, searching people, seizing property or making arrests. That prohibition is spelled out in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, enacted after the Civil War mainly to prevent federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, "I believe the time has come that we reflect on the Posse Comitatus Act." He advocated giving the president and the secretary of defense "correct standby authorities" to manage disasters. Presidents have long been reluctant to deploy U.S. troops domestically, leery of the image of federal troops patrolling in their own country or of embarrassing state and local officials. The active-duty elements that Bush did send to Louisiana and Mississippi included some Army and Marine Corps helicopters and their crews, plus Navy ships. The main federal ground forces, led by troops of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., arrived late Saturday, five days after Katrina struck. They helped with evacuations and performed search-and-rescue missions in flooded portions of New Orleans but did not join in law enforcement operations. The federal troops were led by Lt. Gen. Russel Honore. The governors commanded their National Guard soldiers, sent from dozens of states. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is reviewing a wide range of possible changes in the way the military could be used in domestic emergencies, spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said Friday. He said these included possible changes in the relationship between federal and state military authorities. Under the existing relationship, a state's governor is chiefly responsible for disaster preparedness and response. Governors can request assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If federal armed forces are brought in to help, they do so in support of FEMA, through the U.S. Northern Command, which was established in 2002 as part of a military reorganization after the 9/11 attacks. Di Rita said Rumsfeld has not made recommendations to Bush, but among the issues he is examining is the viability of the Posse Comitatus Act. Di Rita called it one of the "very archaic laws" from a different era in U.S. history that limits the Pentagon's flexibility in responding to 21st century domestic crises. Another such law, Di Rita said, is the Civil War-era Insurrection Act, which Bush could have invoked to waive the law enforcement restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act. That would have enabled him to use either National Guard soldiers or active-duty troops — or both — to quell the looting and other lawlessness that broke out in New Orleans. The Insurrection Act lets the president call troops into federal action inside the United States whenever "unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages — or rebellion against the authority of the United States — make it impracticable to enforce the laws" in any state. The political problem in Katrina was that Bush would have had to impose federal command over the wishes of two governors — Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana and Haley Barbour of Mississippi — who made it clear they wanted to retain state control. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992 when it was requested by California Gov. Pete Wilson after the outbreak of race riots in Los Angeles. President George H.W. Bush dispatched about 4,000 soldiers and Marines. Di Rita cautioned against expecting quick answers to tough questions like whether Congress should define when to trigger the president's authority to send federal troops to take charge of an emergency, regardless of whether a governor agreed. "Is there a way to define a threshold, or an anti--cipated threshold, above which a different set of relationships would kick in?" Di Rita asked. "That's a good question. It's only been two weeks, so don't expect us to have the answers. But those are the kinds of questions we need to be asking."

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 2 (view)

House passes CAFTA agreement in tight vote Posted: 7/28/2005 5:19:44 PM
UPDATE: House passes CAFTA agreement in tight vote After last-minute lobbying, Bush gets a CAFTA win Globe Staff \| July 28, 2005 By Rick Klein WASHINGTON -- President Bush eked out a hard-fought victory early this morning on his top trade priority, with the House of Representatives narrowly approving a free-trade agreement with Central American countries. The measure was widely viewed as a referendum on the Bush administration's trade policies. The House's vote was held open for more than one hour to ensure passage, with the margin in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by two votes. The final tally was 217 to 215. The midnight arm-twisting capped a frenzied lobbying push by the Bush administration and House Republican leaders to secure support for the measure, which engendered strong opposition from Democrats and Republicans. House passage was the last obstacle to the pact's final approval because the Senate passed the measure last month. In an indication of the stakes, the president made a rare lobbying visit to Capitol Hill yesterday to make personal appeals to wavering GOP House members. He urged members to think beyond the interests of their districts and argued that the United States should reward nations that support US policies in combating terrorism and pursuing democratic forms of government, according to members who attended the closed-door meeting. ''Those countries that democratically elected the president -- that are asking us collectively for help in this trade bill -- will be responded to positively," said Bill Thomas, Republican of California and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Unlike in previous trade agreements, the overwhelming majority of Democrats opposed the Central American pact, arguing that the Central American Free Trade Agreement would cost American jobs. The agreement's failure to include adequate workforce and environmental standards warrant its rejection, said House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. ''It is a step backward for workers," Pelosi said. ''If the president wins this vote, he will have expended enormous resources to do so. He has all the power of the presidency, and all we have on the House Democratic side is the fact that we are right." CAFTA, signed by Bush in May 2004, would eliminate most tariffs and import restrictions between the United States and five Central American nations -- Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua -- as well as the Dominican Republic. The agreement is expected to add $1.9 billion to the $16 billion-a-year Latin American market for US goods when fully implemented. The agreement took on outsized political importance as the top trade agenda item being pushed by the Bush administration. It has become a lightning rod for tangentially connected issued such as outsourcing of jobs, the economic and environmental effects of globalization, and the legacy of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, the pact upon which CAFTA is modeled, said Mark Smith of the US Chamber of Commerce, which supports the agreement. ''If you take the agreement for what it is, it's kind of a slam-dunk case," said Smith, the chamber's managing director of Western Hemisphere affairs. ''But the reality is -- and why it's so difficult -- is this has become a proxy war on a number of different issues." Bush administration officials said a defeat of CAFTA could hurt the United States in the current round of world trade talks and harm the administration's ability to strike more important deals with bigger economic powers in the future. But critics warned that opening markets to countries with lower wages and labor standards would cause further losses in US manufacturing jobs. Studies have blamed NAFTA for the loss of between 500,000 and 900,000 jobs, though some claim those jobs would have been lost anyway as the American economy has evolved to reflect globalization. ''We need to negotiate better trade agreements, quite honestly," said Representative Stephen F. Lynch, a South Boston Democrat. ''It's a one-way agreement: We continue to ship jobs to them, and they continue to ship goods to us. That's not the way it's supposed to work." Some Republicans who usually vote with their party broke with GOP leaders on the pact, citing concerns about domestic job losses and a growing trade deficit. ''I simply cannot support a free-trade agreement that I believe would do nothing to address these problems," said Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio and chairman of the House Administration Committee. ''Before we move forward with new efforts to lower the barriers to international free trade, we must review the consequences of the policies of the past and address the problems of the present." Bush joined Vice President****Cheney and US Trade Representative Rob Portman in meeting with House Republicans to make a case for CAFTA. He had private meetings and phone calls with other members later in the day, though the White House declined to identify the members involved in the meetings. Representative C.L. ''Butch" Otter, Republican of Idaho, said GOP leaders promised pork-barrel spending and future legislation to undecided members, with a massive highway spending bill scheduled to be completed this week as a prime location for pet projects. Otter said he opposed CAFTA, despite personal lobbying from Bush at the White House. ''They're pulling out all the stops," Otter said. ''They're either promising or threatening. They've done everything they could." Democrats sought to maintain party unity, with organized labor groups lobbying for CAFTA's defeat. Party leaders told members who are inclined to support free trade that every vote for CAFTA allows a Republican member to oppose it, according to Democratic House members. Shortly before taking up CAFTA, the House voted 255 to 168 to establish a new monitoring system designed to ensure China's compliance with US trade regulations. The measure is opposed by the Bush administration and some business groups, which argue that it sends the wrong message to a burgeoning economic powerhouse with whom the United States is seeking to build a better relationship. Democrats accused Republicans of pursuing a toothless bill on China to win votes for CAFTA by giving on-the-fence House members a chance to support a get-tough policy on trade before voting to open more markets. Senate minority leader Harry Reid said the China measure will not pass the Senate.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Taking away vitamins the sneaky way; CAFTA Posted: 7/27/2005 8:29:33 PM
I was just minding my own business, drinking down my liquid multivitamin/multimineral supplement, reading my email when all of a sudden, I saw this: "Stop CAFTA now Contact your congressmen and senators" I don't know about you, but I need my vitamins and minerals. If you think more regulation is here to protect us, I have some $25 rock to sell you with a necklace attached. Help stop this assault on our health freedom! The media simply must have failed to mention this one. I guess CNN, Fox, ABC, MSNBC does not see a big deal in legislating out vitamin supplements to mention it. (email continued) Your access to dietary supplements is seriously threatened by expansion of the NAFTA trade agreement via threatened passage of CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement which was just voted out of committee in both the House and Senate despite our best efforts to stop it. As discussed in the form letter below, CAFTA contains language called "SPS" or "Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures" which can be used to harmonize the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (which allows you access to dietary supplements) to restrictive international standards which would ban them. Bush will attempt to bring CAFTA up for a vote before the August recess (sometime in June or July), and he's currently attempting to line up the votes to pass it. CAFTA continues the failed policies of NAFTA which has caused a massive $617 Billion trade deficit,which seriously devalues the dollar. If the failed policy of NAFTA are allowed to continue via CAFTA and the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) it will LITERALLY DESTROY AMERICA and force us into a hemispheric version of the EU Dictatorship. It is imperative that you alert your friends and family to join you in taking this action. It is imperative that you alert every health food store in your area because they're being misled on this issue by the pharma dominated vitamin trade associations which aren't telling them the truth. (end of email) First it seemed that relabeling guidline proposal was going to bring them down, then the Codex scare: "The proposed Codex guidelines would be implemented only if 1) they are adopted by the full Codex Commission as presently drafted and 2) they are subsequently adopted by individual countries that have ratified GATT. GATT specifically provides that while ratifying countries must consider international health-related standards such as a final Codex guideline in connection with their own health-related laws and regulations, no ratifying country is required to adopt such a standard." (http://capwiz.com/lef/issues/alert/?alertid=7801956) Now it seems to be CAFTA. When will this assault on our freedoms end..? To learn more: http://capwiz.com/lef/issues/?style=D Comments?

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 33 (view)

NEW FEDERAL ID LAW Posted: 7/21/2005 11:26:13 AM
Alright, I'm Chiming in on this again. The point to me is that we are all innocent until proven guilty of a crime, and we have constitutional guarantees against illegal searches and seizures. When we allow ourselves to be examined, proded (one lady had a male TSA agent feel her boobs and stripped naked), inspected (the red-flag list that the TSA has), and invaded of privacy (biometric info: DNA, credit info, medical history, etc. will be on the chip attached to the card), then this slippery slope will escalate and we ask for a Nazi Germany type internal passport system. Which will be a nightmare of toll boths, check-points, and people asking, "where are your papers." It is not simply who cares, we have a card that has all our info - "it'll be convenient". STOP this line of thought and analyse what is happening for all of our sakes. United we stand, divided we fall. here are some key points of HR-418 which was passed uninanimously by the Senate: 1. Establish a national ID card. 2. Establish a federally-coordinated database of personal information on American citizens with Canada and Mexico. 3. Use the new national ID to track American citizens when traveling outside the U.S. -- and within the U.S. 4. Re-define "terrorism" in broad new terms that could include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. 5. Authorize the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally expand the information included in driver's licenses, including such biometric information as retina scans and DNA information -- and even radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking technology. Carry a driver's license with RFID and governmental officials will know your whereabouts 24/7. According to Rep. Ron Paul, "...HR 418 is a National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform" (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr020905.htm). More info: http://www.unrealid.com/

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 29 (view)

Survey: 25,000 civilians killed in Iraq war Posted: 7/21/2005 10:56:09 AM
he he BM you "doo doo head". It is you who typically slams me out-of-the-blue when I present any evidence. You flamming troll. LOL. I'm not attacking anyone just stirring the pot. There is indeed a large number of words above; which, when sifted through mayhaps not contain any REAL connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein other than****Cheney's spin doctor fiction. But thanks for your comments BM.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

Survey: 25,000 civilians killed in Iraq war Posted: 7/21/2005 9:42:09 AM
Easytag - Cardholding member of "Christians for War". "...Supporting George Bush and endless war since 2000."

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 138 (view)

The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter Posted: 7/19/2005 8:41:33 PM
Erik, Man, you can't reason with a ditto head. If Fox News, or Rush doesn't say it, it isn't real. Just curious quoin, Which morning show do you listen to?

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 7 (view)

NEW FEDERAL ID LAW Posted: 7/19/2005 8:39:44 PM
They may not read our minds, but may have access to our DNA (biometric scans). Remember the movie, "Enemy of the State"? Times that by 10.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 133 (view)

The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter Posted: 7/19/2005 7:43:40 PM
attacking the defenders of our way of life and our constitution GWB and Karl Rove are the biggest violators when it comes to eroding our constitution. Check it out for yourself: Patriot Act Patriot Act II Victory Act Model State Emergency Health Powers Act Real ID Act Many many more constitution eroding pieces of legislation are in effect that I haven't mentioned. This war is being used to erode civil liberties, not fight terrorists.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 4 (view)

NEW FEDERAL ID LAW Posted: 7/19/2005 7:35:33 PM
Schwartzeneggar (schwartzesell-out) in California proposed a $0.25 tax per mile against a 95% public opinion also using this legislation as a backdrop. There is very little real representation in government anymore.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 131 (view)

The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter Posted: 7/19/2005 7:32:36 PM
I think Howard Dean said it right: "Republican's haven't worked an honest day in their lives". I say this because they seems to go by a completely different set of ethics and etiquette. Quoin. Dude, a Felony is not subject to debate. It is simply a felony. A federal crime at that. Republican's believe that somehow, someway, if they spin it right - the truth will not be so clear. The truth is the truth. Karl Rove outted Valarie Plame and committed a federal crime. Period. Turn off the Rush in the morning and think for yourself dude. No offense but, you are wrong.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 2 (view)

NEW FEDERAL ID LAW Posted: 7/19/2005 7:07:17 PM
Look up HR-418 on the search for topics, I posted something about this a while back. Plenty of info on that topic. The National ID law is a lawmaker's and federalist's wet dream. More surveillence, less freedom, more revenue.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 126 (view)

The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter Posted: 7/19/2005 7:01:20 PM
A crime is a crime, is a crime. If I committed this act of treason in times of elevated terrorist activity, I would be arrested. There would be no debate on TV, not commentary by Bill O'Reilly - I would just go to jail. Or are we to understand that there are a different set of rules for Karl Rove? Such Neocon babble shakes head

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 22 (view)

Repeal the 22nd amendment? Posted: 6/15/2005 11:04:57 AM
Ya Know, I agree with Shannanigan. I don't think there is a difference between parties anymore. I haven't for a while now. Bulldogmedic - is there anything short of an invasion that would cause you concern. There are tell-tale signs everywhere of curruptuion. Sheez. Give up the right left dogma and look at what is happening for what it is; blatant curruption. This is the modern day version of the Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to officially declare himself dictator. The bill, which can be found at the Library of Congress website here, reads as follows. ---------------------------------- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House) HJ 24 IH 109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 24 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 17, 2005 Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: `Article -- `The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'. ------------------------------ The 22nd amendment as reprinted on the FindLaw website reads as follows. Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. Annotations Limitation of Presidential Terms ''By reason of the lack of a positive _expression upon the subject of the tenure of the office of President, and by reason of a well-defined custom which has risen in the past that no President should have more than two terms in that office, much discussion has resulted upon this subject. Hence it is the purpose of this . . . [proposal] . . . to submit this question to the people so they, by and through the recognized processes, may express their views upon this question, and if they shall so elect, they may . . . thereby set at rest this problem.'' here's Bush's salute for you: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050615/ids_photos_ts/r1876538514.jpg

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 7 (view)

Bush Urges Congress to Renew Patriot Act Posted: 6/9/2005 11:06:42 AM
Bush and his cabinet's Crimes against the US Constitution Many of those in Washington, on both sides, have commited treacherous acts to this nation's law of the land. So far: -Bush has signed and congress has approved bills that combined violate 9 out of 10 amendements in the bill of rights, and congress has approved of them. -Bush and his administration want a bill that will expand the violations on our constitutional rights to pass, including infringing upon the second amendement. -Bush's administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court have allowed over 700 people to be unlawfully detained, some of them U.S. citizens, without regard to constitutional or international law. -The Bush administration violated Posse Comitatus separating the inteligence community to those offices of local law enforcement allowing a martial law-type surveillence state. -Bush, his administration, and Congress have repeatedly violated Article VI Clause II of the United States constitution. -Bush, his administration, and Congress have repeatedly violated multiple international treaties, including but not limited to the Geneva conventions and the Anti Ballistic Missile treaties. -Bush, his administration, and Congress have initiated an illegal war that has killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and over 1,500 American soldiers at this date. -Bush and his administration have repeatedly lied about the reasons for the war and switched them around often. -Bush, his administration, and congress have repeatedly attempted to initiate a surveillance society. -Bush and his administration are backing rigged voting machines for the 2004 election. -Diebold has allowed a state election to be rigged with their machines, which Bush and his administration are backing. Bush has signed and congress has approved bills that combined violate 9 out of 10 amendements in the bill of rights, and congress has approved of them. Before I elaborate, I'm going to state the amendments violated. I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X. And now I will list each of the amendments and expain how the Homeland Security acts and PATRIOT Acts violate our Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the PATRIOT Act, and the Homeland Security Act can be referenced in the following links respectively, and the amendments will be listed in this argument along with the offending clauses: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=12250 http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s6.html Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 3: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. How it is violated: 1) The Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act allows the government to confiscate your property without a warrant or court order if they classify you as terrorist(4th amendment violation, it will later be covered in this topic when I get to the 4th amendment), even if you were exercising your constitutional rights and not harming anyone as mentioned above. This leaves open the possibility of them using confiscated property to house soldiers, since it becomes their property, even though illegally according to the constitution. This violates the 3rd amendment. Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. How it is violated: 1) The Patriot Act gives the Federal Government the authority to confiscate your personal records or property without your permission ranging from medical and academic records to your library records, all WITHOUT a warrant, and adding to that the previously mentioned definitions of “terrorism”, without probable cause as well. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act stating; `SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS. `(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. This violates the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant, meaning, it violates the 4th amendment. Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. How it is violated: 1) The Patriot Act allows the government to try a non-military American citizen in a military tribunal. The Act allows the government to force prisoners to incriminate themselves. Also, it allows the government to designate people as enemy combatants without allowing them to prove their innocence. President Bush’s Military Order(Part of the PATRIOT Act) states: Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. How it is violated: 1) The PATRIOT Act under the previously mentioned Section 412 allows the government to detain immigrants or people stripped of their citizenship, denying them a speedy and public trial. This is in violation of the 6th amendment. Amendment 7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. How it is violated: 1) The PATRIOT Act as earlier noted allows the government to try immigrants or Americans stripped of their citizenship via a military tribunal. This will likely occur without a jury, violating the 7th amendment. Reference to President Bush’s Military Order linked earlier. Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. How it is violated: 1) The PATRIOT Act leaves no oversight for those tried in a military tribunal. The PATRIOT Act again states: `MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW `SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS- Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. How it is violated: 1) All of those above offenses usurp your rights as a sovereign. This is a 9th amendement violation. Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. How it is violated: 1) The provisions in these acts are non constitutional, and thus only the states may pass such a thing, but then again, what they pass still cannot violate the bill of rights in the U.S. constitution anyway. But such acts should have been left to the states first; the federal government does not have the power granted to it in the constitution to do this. This is a violation of 10th amendment. Bush and his administration want a bill that will expand the violations on our constitutional rights to pass, including infringing upon the second amendement. Ever hear of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003? It was later called the VICTORY Act? Referred to by critics as PATRIOT II? PATRIOT II has a provision that will pass the “Our Lady of Peace Act.” Do you know what this act does? Along with a slew of many other major offenses to the constitution, it contains one major one that is certainly not constitutional that would violate the last amendment we have left in the bill of rights intact; it bans the private sale of firearms within the U.S. Also, to note, the Our Lady of Peace Act also got passed through one of the houses of Congress in 2002, but did not make it fully through the other, thank God. Now upon reading S. 22, it is clear that the leadership of the Senate is fully aware of the Patriot Act II, and have passed these riders out of their committees into the full bill. I spent two hours scanning through S. 22 and, let me tell you, it is a nightmare for anyone who loves liberty. It even contains the Our Lady of Peace Act that registers all gun owners. It bans the private sale of all firearms, creates a Federal ballistics database, and much more.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 14 (view)

Government Tyranny and Ignorant Idealism Posted: 6/9/2005 11:02:40 AM
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/bushpdf.pdf Bush and his cabinet's Crimes against Humanity and US Constitution US Rogue State 1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord. 2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence. 3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it. 4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.) 5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC. 6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001. 7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval. 8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program), 9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens. 10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001 11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa 12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it. 13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition). 14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty. 15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no). 16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined. 17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000. 18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe. 19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government. 20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified. 21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others. 22. Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26). Many of those in Washington, on both sides, have commited treacherous acts to this nation's law of the land. So far: -Bush has signed and congress has approved bills that combined violate 9 out of 10 amendements in the bill of rights, and congress has approved of them. -Bush and his administration want a bill that will expand the violations on our constitutional rights to pass, including infringing upon the second amendement. -Bush's administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court have allowed over 700 people to be unlawfully detained, some of them U.S. citizens, without regard to constitutional or international law. -The Bush administration violated Posse Comitatus. -Bush, his administration, and Congress have repeatedly violated Article VI Clause II of the United States constitution. -Bush, his administration, and Congress have repeatedly violated multiple international treaties, including but not limited to the Geneva conventions and the Anti Ballistic Missile treaties. -Bush, his administration, and Congress have initiated an illegal war that has killed over 9,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and over 800 American soldiers at this date. -Bush and his administration have repeatedly lied about the reasons for the war and switched them around often. -Bush, his administration, and congress have repeatedly attempted to initiate a surveillance society. -Bush and his administration are backing rigged voting machines for the 2004 election. -Diebold has allowed a state election to be rigged with their machines, which Bush and his administration are backing. Bush has signed and congress has approved bills that combined violate 9 out of 10 amendements in the bill of rights, and congress has approved of them. Before I elaborate, I'm going to state the amendments violated. I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X. And now I will list each of the amendments and expain how the Homeland Security acts and PATRIOT Acts violate our Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the PATRIOT Act, and the Homeland Security Act can be referenced in the following links respectively, and the amendments will be listed in this argument along with the offending clauses: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=12250 http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s6.html Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 3: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. How it is violated: 1) The Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act allows the government to confiscate your property without a warrant or court order if they classify you as terrorist(4th amendment violation, it will later be covered in this topic when I get to the 4th amendment), even if you were exercising your constitutional rights and not harming anyone as mentioned above. This leaves open the possibility of them using confiscated property to house soldiers, since it becomes their property, even though illegally according to the constitution. This violates the 3rd amendment. Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. How it is violated: 1) The Patriot Act gives the Federal Government the authority to confiscate your personal records or property without your permission ranging from medical and academic records to your library records, all WITHOUT a warrant, and adding to that the previously mentioned definitions of “terrorism”, without probable cause as well. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act stating; `SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS. `(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. This violates the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant, meaning, it violates the 4th amendment. Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. How it is violated: 1) The Patriot Act allows the government to try a non-military American citizen in a military tribunal. The Act allows the government to force prisoners to incriminate themselves. Also, it allows the government to designate people as enemy combatants without allowing them to prove their innocence. President Bush’s Military Order(Part of the PATRIOT Act) states: Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. How it is violated: 1) The PATRIOT Act under the previously mentioned Section 412 allows the government to detain immigrants or people stripped of their citizenship, denying them a speedy and public trial. This is in violation of the 6th amendment. Amendment 7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. How it is violated: 1) The PATRIOT Act as earlier noted allows the government to try immigrants or Americans stripped of their citizenship via a military tribunal. This will likely occur without a jury, violating the 7th amendment. Reference to President Bush’s Military Order linked earlier. Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. How it is violated: 1) The PATRIOT Act leaves no oversight for those tried in a military tribunal. The PATRIOT Act again states: `MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW `SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS- Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. How it is violated: 1) All of those above offenses usurp your rights as a sovereign. This is a 9th amendement violation. Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. How it is violated: 1) The provisions in these acts are non constitutional, and thus only the states may pass such a thing, but then again, what they pass still cannot violate the bill of rights in the U.S. constitution anyway. But such acts should have been left to the states first; the federal government does not have the power granted to it in the constitution to do this. This is a violation of 10th amendment. Bush and his administration want a bill that will expand the violations on our constitutional rights to pass, including infringing upon the second amendement. Ever hear of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003? It was later called the VICTORY Act? Referred to by critics as PATRIOT II? PATRIOT II has a provision that will pass the “Our Lady of Peace Act.” Do you know what this act does? Along with a slew of many other major offenses to the constitution, it contains one major one that is certainly not constitutional that would violate the last amendment we have left in the bill of rights intact; it bans the private sale of firearms within the U.S. Also, to note, the Our Lady of Peace Act also got passed through one of the houses of Congress in 2002, but did not make it fully through the other, thank God. Now upon reading S. 22, it is clear that the leadership of the Senate is fully aware of the Patriot Act II, and have passed these riders out of their committees into the full bill. I spent two hours scanning through S. 22 and, let me tell you, it is a nightmare for anyone who loves liberty. It even contains the Our Lady of Peace Act that registers all gun owners. It bans the private sale of all firearms, creates a Federal ballistics database, and much more.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 12 (view)

Government Tyranny and Ignorant Idealism Posted: 6/8/2005 10:07:54 PM
I know what they mean when they say, "support the President because he's the President." It uses the same logic as, "It is because it is." There is no rhyme or reason to it. It's like saying I support him because he sticks to his guns and doesn't waver in his decisions. Yes, when he decides to kill tens of thousands, and maiming millions by spreading democracy, he continues to do it, day-after-day, after day. He doesn't waver when he's killing people. That's the kind of determination we need in a President. What a great guy....

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 23 (view)

Federal supreme court rules against medical pot Posted: 6/6/2005 2:56:59 PM
They want marijuana illegal so they can prescribe something that will really help you. Like drugs that cost $50 a pill, and have 4 pages of side-effects.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Government Tyranny and Ignorant Idealism Posted: 6/6/2005 2:55:00 PM
Insteresting that to a Neocon, Bush's crimes simply do not exist or are not true if: 1. they didn't personally investigate it, and 2. they can dismiss the source (because it does not conform to the standards of CNN, Fox and other sham media outlets), 3. they heard the real story on FOX News, 4. claim what ever you show them that, "that doesn't prove anything" mentality vs. "there may be evidence to further investigate this". You simply cannot argue intelligence or abstraction into a closed mind. Truth to these people lies in their alliances. (excerpt from djpauledge.com) Government and Tyranny February 8, 2005, 12:34 pm Just looking at some quotes from the brilliant minds of history and comparing them to Dubya`s musings, you start to see a worrying trend.The final quote from Scottish historian Sir Alex Fraser Tytler is perhaps the most worrying, when applied to the USA today.. The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. George Washington "I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president." - George Bush "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job." - George Bush "And we base it, our history, and our decision making, our future, on solid values. The first value is, we're all God's children" - George Bush "I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution" - George Bush "We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God," - George Bush This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. Plato "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch" - George Bush "I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes" - George Bush "As a matter of fact, when we gave [Saddam Hussein] the final chance, he continued to deceive and evade. So I have a choice to make at this point in our history. Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend this country?"- George Bush If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. James Madison "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" - George Bush "In the war on terror, you have fought enemies' freedom -- freedom's enemies from the caves and mountains of Afghanistan to the deserts and cities of Iraq" - George Bush. "Hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure" - George Bush Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. Woodrow Wilson "The Patriot Act defends our liberty." - George Bush Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. Plato "We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers" - George Bush "I believe in the transformational power of liberty"- George Bush "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty" - George Bush As long as I don't write about the government, religion, politics, and other institutions, I am free to print anything. Pierre de Beaumarchais Criticism of government finds sanctuary in several portions of the 1st Amendment. It is part of the right of free speech. It embraces freedom of the press. Hugo L. Black Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. Hugo L. Black Media "Distortions" The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections. Lord Acton The 2004 US Elections: The Mother of all Vote Frauds I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system. Naom Chomsky "It would be a heck of a lot easier to be a dictator than work in a democracy" - George Bush "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator" - George Bush " It's not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance. We are beginning to see some success in opening up federal coffers for faith-based programs" - George Bush Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear . Harry S. Truman "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George Bush The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny. Hugo L. Black When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives. Robert A. Heinlein See any of the below sites for Dubya`s Patriot Act 1 and 11 The Revolution of 1800 and the USA PATRIOT Act WRH Prison Planet RENSE A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage. Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 142 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 5/21/2005 5:11:03 PM
"for education purposes" get a hobby...

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 140 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 5/21/2005 4:30:09 PM
foxfire, PA'leez Luise, Get a brain already. This is all mental masterbation for me if every fact is not checked, verify for ones self. Explaining things away with weak rhetoric does not a good researcher make. Michaels Rivero and his site, "whatreallyhappened.com" is rated in the top 1000 of the entire internet as far as hits go, so I think if I were you, I would check my own sources. His site is very well respected and he gets hits from media giants like ABC, CNN, and others just to keep up. As for the others, there are great documentaries on them, and I listed them for info only. It is clear that many documentaries have their own sited research on them and can be checked out at your won discresion. As far as media is concerned, only a few corporations own the entirety of media in the US. So if you think CNN is a good source for info - think again. It is all fitered. Media Ownership: http://italy.indymedia.org/print.php?id=171102

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 122 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 5/20/2005 9:02:21 AM
Windover and others, Let me just start by saying that what I wrote is a fact. PERIOD. Given the seriousness of these allegations you would think a logical, moral person would want to check out these facts first hand rather than kill the messenger. But unfortunately, that's what is happening today in the media and socially in the US. Killing the messenger. Take the time to watch this vid OK? http://premedtutor.com/videos/martial_law_p03_bb.wmv Somewhere in the middle of it, it goes into the Prescott Bush/Nazi stuff. It is well documented in the video. Is that too much to ask? As for the George HW Bush document that I posted a link to, I simply can't make you research it for yourself, and therefore, no one can prove it to you if you don't want it proven. It demands too much credibility from you. Now for you other guys who attacked me based on 9/11. I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED 9/11. But since you did, riddle me this? Why was building 7 purposely blown from the inside the morning of September 11th, according to Silverstein the owner of the building. Why were all ATF and Cia agrents absent the morning of 9/11? Why were so many key figures warned before-hand not to fly on September 11th? What is with all the put options profiteering on 9/11? Why weren't the trades that were made and profitted from publicized and brought out in the open? Why did they already know why did it (9/11) the next morning without investigation (Bin Laden)? Why are there so many family connection with Bush and the Bin Ladens? here's the big one: HOW IN THE HELL DID NORAD STAND DOWN ON 9/11? NORAD never stands down. I used to be in the aviation field and I will tell you that NORAD never stands down. Rediculous. Well I'm done. It isn't my job to force you guys to think. Here are a few links if you want to see what's going on, if not, then enjoy the New World Order with the rest of us. http://www.supportthetruth.com/ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ http://www.nogw.com/movies.html http://www.whatreallyhappened.com http://watch.pair.com/reich.html http://www.apfn.org/apfn/grove.asp "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." - Sir Edmund Burke

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 108 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 5/19/2005 11:41:20 PM
acu, How do you prove anything? Are you needing redundency to prove a truth? Does it has to be said over and over again before you can accept it? DO you need social acceptance before you can learn something new? What does you measure of belief demand? I live by truth, even if it takes me to places that can be ugly. To live any other way is to be incongruent with ones self, and to exert a measure of denial. peace.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 22 (view)

Liberals also don't like outside interference. Posted: 5/19/2005 11:35:39 PM
Skeptical, Weak, very weak. My profile says I moved to the area, not that I am Canadian. Read it over again before you make the flimsy point you are trying to make. I am American and being a veteran and a born American (and even if I wasn't) I have the right to set people straight with regard to what is happening in the US. Furthermore, Canadians bordered just North of the U.S. have every right to speak about American politics. It involves them very much with trade, tariffs, manipulation and geopolitical concerns. Your arguement is simply silly. I'm sure we would agree on most things, but you are missing the point of THIS thread, and that is that people simply don't see what is happening to their civil liberties and our constitution since it is not typically reported by idiots like Peter Jennings or Bill O'Reilly. Americans (generalization here so bear with me) in majority are guilty of complacency. What I was trying to say in this thread is that stupid comments such as "liberals Hate America" lacks any credible critical thought which would even require a response from an intelligent person. And shows the poorly understood geopolitics taking place under our noses, and reduces it to a simplistic world-view that is inaccurate. I also enjoy the occasional, "Oh, Saddam would love you" comment when challenged with facts. Peace

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 105 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 5/19/2005 11:21:47 PM
These sources can be traced back to originals if you care to look. 1. http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/bush.htm - If you don't believe the memo, then request via the library of congress the actual document. 2. LOOK IT UP in the Congressional Record If you don't believe this is accurate. (http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm)

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 102 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 5/19/2005 10:33:34 PM
FACT 1: George HW Bush (daddy Bush) can be directly linked to the JFK Assasination. FACT 2: Prescott Bush can be proven with congressional records with Averall Herriman via Union Bank to supply Hilter and the Third Reich during WWII. There is something to chew on...

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 7 (view)

Liberals also don't like outside interference. Posted: 5/19/2005 10:28:59 PM
Skeptically Cynical, Don't point the, "you don't have a right to say anything because you are not American finger" because I am American, I served in the first Gulf War in the US Marine Corps. I am a veteran, and I am educated. Are we living in a free country I ask? If you can reconcile the Bill of Rights to the: 1. Patriot Act I-Under section 802 of the USA Patriot Act, misdemeanor non-terror related crimes are listed as terrorism. Citizens are stripped of their most basic Constitutional rights that were held sacred in the old Republic. 2. Patriot Act II - no need to get warrants anymore 3. Victory Act - The Victory Act allows government agents to use wiretaps and other surveillance on American citizens' private communications, and then use the results of this surveillance in court, even when the surveillance is performed in violation of Americans' constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure. For example, the Victory Act would allow government agents to listen in on Americans' private phone calls, and then use tapes of the phone calls in a court of law, even without a search warrant from a judge. 4. Victory Act II 5. The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act- strips citizens of their basic rights against health related issues 6. Intelligence Reform Act - Established guidlines for National ID card with Biometric information 7. Real ID Act - the bill which makes it law to carry the National ID card with all you pertainent data (big brother). 8. Torture Memos - pre-approved torture memo from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Then you are as blind as any neocon is. This stuff is the law. But don't worry, I'm sure you are OK as long as they are still running Seinfeld reruns. Guezz!

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 2 (view)

Liberals HATE Stupidity Posted: 5/19/2005 10:38:20 AM
Very well thought out tr1414, Bravo....

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 10 (view)

Star Wars Episode 3 Posted: 5/19/2005 10:02:45 AM
Art Imitates Reality: Star Wars a cautionary tale about politics Free Press News Services \| May 16, 2005 By Bruce Kirkland Star Wars is a wakeup call to Americans about the erosion of democratic freedoms under George W. Bush, George Lucas said yesterday. Lucas, at a Cannes film festival press conference yesterday, said he first wrote the framework of Star Wars in 1971 when reacting to then-U.S. president Richard Nixon and the events of the Vietnam War. But the story still has relevance today, he said, and is part of a pattern he has noticed in history. "I didn't think it was going to get quite this close," he said of the parallels between the Nixon era and the Bush presidency, which has been sacrificing freedoms in the interests of national security. RELATED: Cannes 'Star Wars' Premiere Sparks Debate Art Imitates Reality: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith In Your Face: The Globalists' Language is Hidden in Plain View "It is just one of those re-occuring things. I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation of how dangerous it is . . . The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we are doing now in Iraq are unbelievable." In the latest film, the Palpatine character takes over as ruler of the universe with the co-operation of the other politicians. "Because this is the back story (of the Star Wars saga), one of the main features of the back story was to tell how the Republic became the Empire," Lucas said. "At the time I did that, it was during the Vietnam War and the Nixon era. The issue was: How does a democracy turn itself over to a dictator? Not how does a dictator take over, but how does a democracy and Senate give it away?" Lucas cited the Roman empire in the wake of Caesar's death, France after the revolution and Hitler's rise in Germany as historical examples of countries giving themselves over to dictators. "They all seem to happen in the same way with the same issues: Threats from the outside; they need more control; and a democratic body not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling." Lucas earned applause for his comments before joining actors Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman (who has shaved her head for a new role), Samuel L. Jackson, Ian McDiarmid and Anthony Daniels in a free-wheeling discussion of Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge Of The Sith, which made its world premiere last night out-of- competition. This was before the Cannes brass presented Lucas with an honour called "the trophy of the festival." Some highlights of the press conference: - On making Episodes VII through IX, Lucas said he never planned to do it, regardless of rumours to the contrary: "The original intention was to make one movie and it turned into three. That was really the end of it. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that it occured to me to do the back story (and now it is over)." - On his big death scene in Revenge Of The Sith, Jackson said: "I was pleased with my death. I asked him (Lucas) not to do anything messy and he didn't. Now I've had the Errol Flynn moment that I've always wished for since I was a kid watching movies." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannes 'Star Wars' Premiere Sparks Debate Fox News \| May 16, 2005 CANNES, France — Without Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the Cannes Film Festival this time, it was left to George Lucas and "Star Wars" to pique European ire over the state of world relations and the United States' role in it. Lucas' themes of democracy on the skids and a ruler preaching war to preserve the peace predate "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith" by almost 30 years. Yet viewers Sunday — and Lucas himself — noted similarities between the final chapter of his sci-fi saga and our own troubled times. Cannes audiences made blunt comparisons between " Revenge of the Sith (search )" — the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side and the rise of an emperor through warmongering — to President Bush's war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. Two lines from the movie especially resonated: "This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause," bemoans Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) as the galactic Senate cheers dictator-in-waiting Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) while he announces a crusade against the Jedi. "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy," Hayden Christensen's Anakin — soon to become villain Darth Vader — tells former mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor). The line echoes Bush's international ultimatum after the Sept. 11 attacks, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." "That quote is almost a perfect citation of Bush," said Liam Engle, a 23-year-old French-American aspiring filmmaker. "Plus, you've got a politician trying to increase his power to wage a phony war." Though the plot was written years ago, "the anti-Bush diatribe is clearly there," Engle said. The film opens Wednesday in parts of Europe and Thursday in the United States and many other countries. At the Cannes premiere Sunday night, actors in white stormtrooper costumes paraded up and down the red carpet as guests strolled in, while an orchestra played the "Star Wars" theme. Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his space fantasy. "As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things," Lucas said at a Cannes news conference. "I hope this doesn't come true in our country. "Maybe the film will waken people to the situation," Lucas joked. That comment echoes Moore's rhetoric at Cannes last year, when his anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the festival's top honor. Unlike Moore, whose Cannes visit came off like an anybody-but-Bush campaign stop, Lucas never mentioned the president by name but was eager to speak his mind on U.S. policy in Iraq, careful again to note that he created the story long before the Bush-led occupation there. "When I wrote it, Iraq didn't exist," Lucas said, laughing. "We were just funding Saddam Hussein and giving him weapons of mass destruction. We didn't think of him as an enemy at that time. We were going after Iran and using him as our surrogate, just as we were doing in Vietnam. ... The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable." The prequel trilogy is based on a back-story outline Lucas created in the mid-1970s for the original three "Star Wars" movies, so the themes percolated out of the Vietnam War and the Nixon-Watergate era, he said. Lucas began researching how democracies can turn into dictatorships with full consent of the electorate. In ancient Rome, "why did the senate after killing Caesar turn around and give the government to his nephew?" Lucas said. "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler. "You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption." BTW, I saw it last night, and I would say that it might be the best Star Wars Movie yet.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Liberals HATE Stupidity Posted: 5/19/2005 9:59:24 AM
It still amazes me that in light of the destruction of the U.S. Consitution, the spreading of Bush's version of democracy (exploitation) that there are still topics such as "Liberals HATE AMERICA". What sort of people are you who cannot question your leaders and blindly follow the ideology of Peter Jennings, and other media fools who have lead us down the path of dictatorship? Do you not know that this is a DEMOCRATIC republic - NOT a dictatorship? We the people rule in the UNited States, not our leaders - they represent us. So what are neo-cons saying when they make very weak broad gerealizations like, "Liberals HATE AMERICA"? They are saying, "shut up, and don't question authority because I am not bright enough to figure it out myself, and too afriad to do anything about it, and you should too." Ceratinly that is what Rush and the other "Dittoheads" are saying when we have****Cheney saying that the war on terror is "...a war that won't end in our lifetimes," when our elected (joke) representatives vote to give us a National ID card (HR-418) to we can be like Nazi Germany (i.e. "where are your papers"), fail to notice and election that does not have a re-countable papertrail, a dictator president who uses the "terrorism" to pass Patriot Act I and II and erode the constitution, appoint a attorney general who drafts the infamous "terrorism memos" which give authorization to torture someone until they are dead as long as it wasn't your intent to kill, stop patrolling the borders to Mexico, rob California of hundreds of millions in energy costs and get away with it, Daddy Bush (HW) suggesting a "New World Order" exactly 11 years before the events of 9/11, the loss 3.3 trillion from pentagon coffers, and 400 billion from housing and urban development; do I need to go on? Just this morning Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said, "The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch," and "Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority. Today, in the face of President Bush's power grab, that's more important than ever." Although it is clear that the US Senate no longer represents it's people, I must agree with the Senators comments. At what point does a conservative (misnomer, what are they conserving) or neo-con say to themselves, "is what Bush is doing really good for the country? Or is a conservative's alliegance to his political party first, and then the country? I heard Bush say when asked about campaign reform that is was against compaign reform because it will hurt the Republican party. Excuse me? Is this about the Republican party of about America? Does anyone think anymore?

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 91 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 4/21/2005 9:52:38 AM
Sure, I am sure you can make - the erosion of the U.S. Consitution (Bill of Rights), the destruction of the U.S. Dollar, constant war, intelligence failures of 9/11, the coming draft, the removal of 3.3 trillion dollars out of the pentagon coffers, National ID cards with biometric info, taking away bankrupcy law, California energy rip-off with the Bush/Ken Lay group, and other wonderful achievements by the Bush administration sound like a picnic somehow. Incredible. Let me guess? You watch Fox, and shows like "24". You and your president are ruining our country.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Freedom Isn't Free BS Posted: 4/21/2005 9:41:18 AM
If you are like me and you heard this nonesense before that, "Freedom isn't Free" as an effort to mobilize support for war. But I say to you, YES IT IS! If you were born in the United States your freedom is supposedly guaranteed. It is your God-given right and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Any law that thwarts your rights under the constitution is null and void. We shouldn't have to send our kids to fight wars in foriegn countries because some Coast Guard dodger, ex-drunk, un-elected creep says they are evil. Evil is preemptive war on a country that doesn't threaten us directly. Freedom isn't free, yellow ribbons, and other NON-CRITICAL THINKING bumper stickers on vehicles makes me sick! I AM A VETERAN OF GULF WAR I, and I will tell you that if you really want to support the troops, bring them home, or send them stuff in the mail. It made me feel better when I got a care package. Yellow ribbons are insulting to me. Don't support the Bush operation of WAR,WAR, and more WAR. It is a mind f**k! TURN OFF YOUR TV AND THINK. THE REAL WAR ON FREEDOM NEEDS TO BE FOUGHT AT HOME WITH THE GOVERNMENTS WAR ON OUR BILL OF RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION! Maybe when the veterans get back they can restore our freedoms here in the U.S., and stop the U.S. dollar (Federal Reserve Note) from tumbeling into the abyss of Bushonomics.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 83 (view)

Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...J Posted: 4/19/2005 8:06:56 PM
Bush is gay. No really.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 44 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/16/2005 4:20:57 PM
There are some very clever responses here. Intelligence does not necessarily equate to truth-seeking though. I am going to repeat that because I think it is very important; INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUATE TO SEEKING OF THE HEART OF THE MATTER (OR TRUTH-SEEKING) - I HAVE FOUND. To explain away before a proper investigation is ludicris. There simply is no interest in the truth of the matter as long as it doesn't affect people watching the Simpsons, or CSI. I chose to not answer some of the responses here because the amount of debate necessary to achieve the smallest level of truth would be a waste of time. However, I caution you "business as usual" people - who seem very articulate and intelligent - on the coming trouble ahead to not be so clever as to out-smart yourselves (i.e. revel in the idea of winning a debate on a website rather than investigating the merits and point of this thread). Truth and proof demand so much credibility that the point is wasted on the misdirection of refuted evidence. I won't play that game. Grovecot, merely claiming to "rubbished" something (is that even a word) does not make you correct. It is rhetorical. There is indeed a connection between leadership and blood, and secret societies are real. Giggleparts and Sid seem to be on-the-ball. They have "woken-up", so-to-speak. Sid said it best as she summed up my points nicely: "...people in charge have nothing in common with the average citizen, and care nothing for the welfare of the public, only the interests of their own group. they consider themselves to be above the law, and unfortunately they are mostly right. to assume that the process has anything to do with the public or its opinion is very naive." "...the actual selection process for presidential candidates involved. it obviously has nothing to do with the average person or what they want. is it just me, or are the choices getting more and more ridiculous?" which was that our candidates aren't chosen at random, and they are not in any way representative of the population as a whole. the party system is an illusion. I also agree with Giggleparts about people's assumptions of a benevolent leadership and system. Sheesh. We are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of understanding the political manuevering occuring under our nose if these are the responses. I'm exhausted....

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Iraq Chief Chickenhawk to Head the World Bank Posted: 3/16/2005 3:40:20 PM
Chief Chickenhawk Paul Wolfowitz to head World Bank. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-16-world-bank_x.htm Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was chosen by our glorious leader the head the World Bank. The problem is that he is also a big-time globalist. As is Alan Greenspan. The other problem is that as these no-war serving, "country liberators" and chickenhawks screw up, they tend to get promoted. What kind of influence can we expect from a Bush cabinet globalist chickenhawk controlling the World Bank? Will he follow in the great tradition of World Bank president Robert McNamara, who also helped kill tens of thousands of people in a poor country most Americans couldn't find on a map before getting the job? Or will he help U.S. companies grab Iraq 's oil profits? He's got just the right experience for doling out lucrative World Bank contracts to U.S. businesses.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 26 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/15/2005 9:37:37 AM
Thanks for responses. Let me summarize the group-think: Essentially: Awe, we are all related to royalty if we go back far enough, so the initial point is not valid or even comical. Skull and Bones connections are not important and innocuous (not discussed). Being multimillionaire is also unimportant and innocuous. It's all a conspiracy theory (not discussed). I humbly submit the following questions: 1. How many people do you know (besides Bells' royalty - congratulations Queen Bells, LOL) who actually are highly related to British aristocracy? 2. How many people even know that the motto of Skull of Bones is "Rape (usurp), Rob, and Murder" according to Anthony Sutton in, "America's Secret Establishment?" 3. How does a multimillionaire identify with, and therefore, truly represent John Q. Public? 4. With media ownership at an all-time low (5 corporations run over 90% of radio and TV media) could they be "bottle-necking" the candidates that the establishment wants? Comments?

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 10 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/14/2005 1:31:46 PM
trewq36, If only people cared about this stuff enough. Sheez. Giggleparts, You are an interesting person. But that licking of the stuffed animal thing freaks me out. LOL. Good points, but too much for the average POF'er to take in. Oh well. Good post my friend.

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 11 (view)

You don't say.......... Posted: 3/14/2005 1:14:43 PM
The FACTS themselves are biased against Bush. LOL

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 8 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/14/2005 12:53:52 PM
LOL. peace,

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 6 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/14/2005 12:51:59 PM
Giggle parts. Funny stuff. Yea, I love the Fist of the Northstar too. Great passionate story. DBZ too. LOL

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 5 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/14/2005 12:50:22 PM
Poor or not, they are all blue bloods. Are you going to explain all this away Kadmus? Clinton Blueblood In an Associated Press article published in The Daily Oklahoman, October 28, 1996, Harold Brooks-Baker, director of Burke's Peerage, a London-based publishing house that traces the lineage of royal and noble families, said that Bill Clinton and Bob Dole have more in common than wanting to be president. They are distant cousins! However, Clinton has bluer blood, giving him an election edge. Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe, but took his stepfather's name as a teenager. Clinton's ancestry can be traced back, on his mother's side, to King Henry III who ruled England from 1227 to 1272. He is descended from King Robert I of France. Furthermore, he is related to every Scottish monarch to the current British royal family. Clinton's royal roots include several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montfort, a statesman and soldier under King Henry III. Through de Montfort, Clinton is related to every ancient aristocratic family in Britain today. _________ Gore Blueblood They say Bush’s blue blood runs thicker than Vice President Al Gore’s. In fact it trumps the royal ties of every other president to date, including his father’s. It seems George W. has inherited his mother’s deep blue blood-line. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_102500_blueblood.html) Carter Blueblood “Like Jimmy Carter, it is possible that he is the product of several royal love children of the past,” Brooks-Baker says. “Those connections are harder to trace.” James "Jimmy" Earl Carter related to Edward I of England 21st great-grandson Ronald Wilson Reagan related to James IV of Scotland 14th great-grandson George Herbert Walker Bush related to Robert II of Scotland 17th great-grandson William Jefferson Clinton related to James IV of Scotland 14th great-grandson George Walker Bush related to Robert II of Scotland 18th great-grandson (source: http://www.blue-blood.co.uk) What about the Skulls connection? Bush, Reagan and Nixon were also members of Bohemian Grove - another secret society involved with some pretty scary stuff (http://www.jonronson.com/them_bohemia.html). A member of a secret-society running the country? Don't you find that a conflict of interest?

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

John Forbes Kerry and George W. Bush - Kissing Cousins and War-Mongers Posted: 3/14/2005 11:31:05 AM
And you thought it was a completely fair election (smile). Most people have no idea that John Forbes Kerry, and George W. Bush are kissing Cousins. The branch occured from Edmund Reade, and Elizabeth Cook. According to CBS News "They're ninth cousins, twice removed." Sources: Kerry/Bush http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/04/politics/main604163.shtml, Bush/Powell http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/msn/strange/bush3/tree.htm This is a nice quote: "I would be delighted to invite both President Bush and Senator Kerry for a family reunion." Hugh Hefner By the way, they are also related to British royalty and multimillionaires. Sources: http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article216009.ece http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1062095.html?menu Both are members of the secret Yale society, "Skull and Bones". See the link below where both Kerry and Bush admit to this fact on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press". Skull and Bones only selects only 15 members a year. Why are Christain leaders joining such a group as the Order of Skull and Bones? Source: http://www.infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/kerry_bush_sb.htm Now, here's the punchline. So how is it, that in a free America who is represented by the people by elected representation where anyone can be president; out of 270 million people in the US, do we get two blue bloods related to British royalty, both multimillionaires, both Skull and Bones members as he only real choices for the United States President? What are the odds of this being a coincidence? Do you still feel that we are a democratic republic? Or that we elect the best person for the job? Do you also still feel that anyone can be president? LOL. Have fun with this one....

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

The new Star Wars Episode III trailer Posted: 3/11/2005 4:03:12 PM
Has anyone seen it besides me? It looks awesome. I can't wait for the real deal. That dam Palpatine and his Patriot Act - getting the clone army so he can take over the galaxy. Hmm sounds familiar. LOL. Wanna see it? Movie-list is authorized to post the trailer. follow the instructions 1. Go here: http://www.movie-list.com/ 2. Sign up for the free forums 3. go here: http://www.movie-list.net/exclusive/star-wars-ep3-trailer-hd-640.mov Enjoy! Tell me what you think about it. joe

joefixit

Joined: 11/17/2004

Msg: 4 (view)

Why Liberals are so Rabid Posted: 3/11/2005 1:22:24 PM
Great... another Monday. How disappointing. More neocon misdirection and lies added to POF. Varus, I thought you left? I guess you always have dogs returning to their own vomit.

Show ALL Forums