Search Members Calendar FAQ Portal
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


  • Navigation
  • The Garden District
  • →
  • The Keyhole Doorway
  • →
  • Rowan ruminates
  • →
  • New World Disorder

Announcements and links

Henry Cavill
Hayden Christensen
Comics Continuum
Doctor Who Online
Ebay
IMPORTANT MESSAGE!!!

WE HAVE NOW MOVED TO YUKU! VIEW AND POST AT OUR NEW/OLD FORUM HERE!
Charlie Hunnam
Outpost Gallifrey
Anne Rice
David Tennant
Tenth Planet
Welcome to The Garden District. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our fabulous features:

Username:   Password:
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
New World Disorder
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 31 2007, 06:27 PM (2,600 Views)
la anaconda de chocolatee Jun 20 2008, 07:56 PM Post #141
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
House easily passes compromise surveillance law

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.

"This bill, though imperfect, protects both," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former member of the intelligence committee.

President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.

The House's passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks the beginning of the end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping inside the United States. The Senate was expected to pass the bill with a large margin, perhaps as soon as next week, before Congress takes a break during the week of the Fourth of July.

The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.

The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

Critics of the bill say dismissal is a foregone conclusion.

"These provisions turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She opposes the bill.

Opponents of immunity believe civil lawsuits are the only way the full extent of the wiretapping program will ever be revealed.

Key senators voiced strong opposition to the compromise, although they're unlikely to have the votes to either defeat or filibuster the bill. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the immunity deal. He said that nothing in the new bill would prevent the government from once again wiretapping domestic phone and computer lines without court permission.

Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president's Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.

"Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.

"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.

Some civil liberties and privacy groups are also opposing the bill. They object not only to the immunity provision but to what they consider the weakening of the FISA court's oversight of government eavesdropping. For example, the government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it. But if the court objects to how the government is carrying out the wiretap, it could be weeks before those methods are changed or stopped.

"What we have here is the opportunity for the government to commit mass untargeted surveillance," said Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Opponents also contend the privacy of Americans who communicate with people overseas is not adequately protected. The bill would allow the government to tap the foreigner's calls without court approval, and critics contend that innocent American conversations can be swept up in that.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendment bill also would:

_Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

_Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.

_Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.

_Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

_Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

_Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.




:alien :alien :alien
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Jun 20 2008, 10:54 PM Post #142
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Boooo!! The House has betrayed our right to privacy!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Jul 31 2008, 03:42 PM Post #143
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Damn this article is good, I've been aware of the Hegelian Principle for a number of years, and have watched its usage after 9/11 and The War on Terror to sickening degrees
_________________________________________________

The Hegelian Principle Helps Explain How the Powerful Got That Way
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 by: Barbara L. Minton

(NaturalNews) How did the powerful gain power over the rest of us? In a time when the power and freedom of the average American is being eroded at terrific speed, many of us wonder how this could be happening. What we may not realize it that the powerful have specific tools or principles to use to con the rest of us into surrendering our power to them. One of the most effective principles used in the last several years with great success is the Hegelian Principle.

The principle is simple, consisting of only three steps toward a preconceived goal. Once you are able to see how it works, you may want to analyze many of the events unfolding around you in terms of this principle. As the principle is often used today, it can be explained as:

Step One: Create a problem or conflict - Perceive a problem that exists and build it up out of proportion to its actual importance, or create a problem or conflict where none existed before.

Step Two: Publicize the problem and create opposition to it - Relentlessly place stories about this problem in the major media outlets. Report on it daily until it becomes a steady drumbeat and a truism for the public who then begin clamoring for a solution to this problem.

Step Three: Offer a solution - The best solutions are those that appeal to the emotions of the public and make them think something really good is being done for them, when in fact, something really bad is being done to them. This solution is one that the public never knew it needed until the conditioning of Step Two was successfully completed.

A simple example of the Hegelian Principle at work was the food industries' conning of the public to throw out their butter and run to buy margarine. It goes like this:

Step One: Food industry is geared up to provide food for soldiers during WWII. When war ends, food industry needs to turn its capacity into something it can sell during peace time. It wants to use cheap ingredients to make a high margin product and decides on the manufacture of margarine, but needs to find a way to get the public to buy it. They decide on a scheme to turn the people against butter.

Step Two: Food companies spread propaganda convincing the populace that butter is deadly to their health. Appeal to fear. Get doctors and nutritionists to help in the spreading of propaganda. Sponsor medical studies to "prove" that butter is deadly. Convince housewives who had grown up healthy while eating butter that they are placing their families in jeopardy if they serve butter.

Step Three: Food companies rush in to save the American public from having to put butter on their tables. They present margarine. Women who want their families to love them stampede to buy margarine. Voila!

One of the classic and most sinister examples of the Hegelian Principle involves the Nazi's rise to power that quickly followed the burning of the German Parliament building, the Reichstag, on the night of February 27, 1933.

Step One: Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, has no intention of abiding by the rules of democracy that installed him into the Chancellor position. He intends only to use those rules to legally establish himself as dictator as quickly as possible, and begin the Nazi revolution. But opposition lurks in his path.

The Nazis, led by Joseph Goebbels, devise a scheme to burn down the Reichstag, the building where the elected officials of the republic meet to conduct the daily business of government, and blame it on the Communist opposition.

Step Two: Hitler acts as though he is enraged over the fire and speaks out that the German people have been too soft on the Communists, proclaiming that "every Communist official must be shot. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as well!" Hitler directs the newspaper's coverage of the fire. He and Goebbels put together papers full of lies about a Communist plot to violently seize power in Berlin. The newspaper proclaimed that only Hitler and the Nazis could prevent a Communist takeover.

Step Three: Hitler demands an emergency decree to overcome the crisis. There is little resistance, and the decree is signed "for the protection of the people and the State". According to the decree, "Restrictions on the personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." The Nazi dictatorship is established.

The Hegelian Principle was first described by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a 19th century German philosopher. The principle defined a method used to produce a oneness of mind on any given issue or thought. Since its conception, it has been used repeatedly and very successfully to gain power, status, money and control. The original terms for the three steps were Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.

Under Hegel's theory, one type of government or society (Thesis) would give rise to another that was the opposite of this type of government or society (Antithesis). This would result in conflict between the two types since they were opposites. After thesis and antithesis ideas battle each other for an extended time without either side winning, both sides become ready for change. This change (Synthesis) is then brought about by the creation of a third type of government or society.

These three steps are easily seen in the example of the Nazi rise to power, in which the Democratic government battled the Communist form of government. When the public was conditioned to ask for change, a new government system was installed.

The principle is often seen at work in the downhill slide of education toward the goal of ensuring children grow up unable to be intelligent participants in their democracy.

Step One - The federal government wants to assert control over the educational system, previously the providence of the states. As a way of doing this, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is created as a tool to gain power by doling out money to the school districts if they would accept the strings attached. Slowly but surely the pot of federal dollars that could be had is increased, while state support is undermined. Under ESEA mandates, academic programs are replaced by social programs.

Step Two - As academic programs are displaced, test scores drop, and juvenile problems increase as children become more and more illiterate, and parental and public outcry becomes louder. Teachers are made the fall guys for the illiteracy of their students. Attempts at fixing the problems involve the creation of ever more social programs, and fail to address the issue of children's failure to learn. Parents are blamed as schools make inroads into controlling the parent/child relationship by pitting parents against their own children over school issues. Education reform is officially sanctioned as Bush announces himself the education president, proclaiming that "The people have been heard. We must do something about our ailing education system."

Step Three - We are in step three now. Progressive socialist education is upon us. We are creating a generation of people incapable of thinking, reasoning, speaking and questioning. The individual will soon be extinct, having been stripped of his uniqueness and become no more than a commodity to be valued accordingly. With the loss of uniqueness goes the loss of independence and the ability to advocate for one's self. The new generation emerges as a willing participant in its own enslavement.

Reference:

Hornberger, Jacob "How Hitler Became A Dictator", The Future of Freedom Foundation


About the author
Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

http://www.naturalnews.com/023727.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Julesy Jul 31 2008, 04:22 PM Post #144
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
wow thats fucking scary.

I wish more people would open thier eyes or at the very least consider things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodney Jul 31 2008, 11:02 PM Post #145
Member Avatar
Bon Qui Qui
Posts:
3,781
Group:
Members
Member
#33
Joined:
August 2, 2006
It's nothing new but, soooo effective!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Sep 16 2008, 06:20 PM Post #146
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
http://www.henrymakow.com/is_the_illuminati_proviking_a.html

Some time ago I read how certain groups had warned the neocon lot to quite their march for war or suffer. Their response was to begin an economic collapse.

If they can't have a new world order through war, they will have it by people begging for one because of economic insecurities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodney Sep 16 2008, 06:31 PM Post #147
Member Avatar
Bon Qui Qui
Posts:
3,781
Group:
Members
Member
#33
Joined:
August 2, 2006
Read the article. Interesting load of codswallop to strike fear in the hearts of people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Sep 16 2008, 07:18 PM Post #148
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Codswallop! What a great word! :ha
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Julesy Sep 16 2008, 10:57 PM Post #149
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Damn you Jesse for making me want to read that.
Scary!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Sep 17 2008, 02:00 AM Post #150
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
this makes me wonder, should I cash in my Roth IRA and use it to pay off my debt? It wouldnt pay it all off, but it would be a big chunk of it off. If I dont cash it out, do you think I will loose it all?

Jesse what do you think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Sep 17 2008, 12:49 PM Post #151
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
Tough call Michele, I personally wouldn't place my future on those things unless I was at first debt free. I don't want to tell you what to do with it though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Sep 17 2008, 02:24 PM Post #152
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
I have about $3000 in my Roth IRA. If I did cash it in, it wouldnt clear my debt, only get rid of about 1/4 of my debt. So I dont know if that is worth it. Maybe I will call my financial advisor and ask him his opinion. Gonna ask my dad too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Julesy Sep 17 2008, 02:33 PM Post #153
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
my guy wanted to open an IRA for me but I told him no.

not because of this but cause if I put money in it I would be poor but he wanted to put money in it FOR me but I still said no.

Maybe thats a good thing?

IM GONNA BURY MONEY IN MY BACKYARD!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Sep 17 2008, 02:41 PM Post #154
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
I opened mine up when me and Darwin were married, like 5 or 6 years ago. I would probably have at least another thousand in it but I stopped putting money in it a year and a half ago when I was almost fired from my case manager job the first time.

Ever since I havent made enough extra money to start putting back in again.

I dont want to cash it out, but I dont want to loose all of it either if the economy totally plummets. Would that happen? Would the money in my IRA just completely dissappear?


I also have a 402B with my former employer, that has about $2000 in it but if I cash that out I would have to pay the taxes so screw that!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Sep 17 2008, 03:41 PM Post #155
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
I asked my dad about the IRA , he said it would not be worth it to cash it out, seeing as I only have $3,000, and about 40% of that would go to penalties and taxes. He said it is highly unlikely that I would loose the whole thing due to the stock market, I might loose some of it, but eventually it would be recovered anyways when the economy improves.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Julesy Oct 18 2008, 12:24 AM Post #156
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
HOW NEAR IS MARTIAL LAW?

Wayne Madsen Reports - WMR has learned from knowledgeable Federal Emergency Management Agency sources that the Bush administration is putting the final touches on a plan that would see martial law declared in the United States with various scenarios anticipated as triggers. The triggers include a continuing economic collapse with massive social unrest, bank closures resulting in violence against financial institutions, and another fraudulent presidential election that would result in rioting in major cities and campuses around the country.

In addition, Army Corps of Engineer sources report that the assignment of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team to the Northern Command's U.S. Army North is to augment FEMA and federal law enforcement in the imposition of traffic controls, crowd control, curfews, enhanced border and port security, and neighborhood patrols in the event a national emergency being declared. The BCT was assigned to duties in Iraq before being assigned to the Northern Command.

On April 3, WMR reported on a highly-classified document regarding the martial law scenario: WMR has learned from knowledgeable sources within the US financial community that an alarming confidential and limited distribution document is circulating among senior members of Congress and their senior staff members that is warning of a bleak future for the United States if it does not quickly get its financial house in order. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among those who have reportedly read the document. The document is being called the "C & R" document because it reportedly states that if the United States defaults on loans and debt underwriting from China, Japan, and Russia, all of which are propping up the United States government financially, and the United States unilaterally cancels the debts, America can expect a war that will have disastrous results for the United States and the world. "Conflict" is the "C word" in the document. The other scenario is that the federal government will be forced to drastically raise taxes in order to pay off debts to foreign countries to the point that the American people will react with a popular revolution against the government. "Revolution" is the document’s "R word

From Democracy Now

Amy Goodman: In a barely noticed development last week, the Army stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for domestic operations under the control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters. It's being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or "sea-smurf" for short.

It's the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to USNORTHCOM, which was itself formed in October 2002 to "provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts."

An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted, in addition to emergency response, the force "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control." The Army Times has since appended a clarification, and a September 30th press release from the Northern Command states: "This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control.". . .

Army Colonel Michael Boatner is future operations division chief of USNORTHCOM. He joins me on the phone from Colorado Springs. We're also joined from Madison, Wisconsin by journalist and editor of The Progressive magazine, Matthew Rothschild.

Why don't we begin with Colonel Michael Boatner? Can you explain the significance, the first time, October 1st, deployment of the troops just back from Iraq?

Col. Michael Boatner: Yes, Amy. I'd be happy to. And again, there has been some concern and some misimpressions that I would like to correct. The primary purpose of this force is to provide help to people in need in the aftermath of a WMD-like event in the homeland. It's something that figures very prominently in the national planning scenarios under the National Response Framework, and that's how DoD provides support in the homeland to civil authority. This capability is tailored technical life-saving support and then further logistic support for that very specific scenario. So, we designed it for that purpose.

And really, the new development is that it's been assigned to NORTHCOM, because there's an increasingly important requirement to ensure that they have done that technical training, that they can work together as a joint service team. These capabilities come from all of our services and from a variety of installations, and that's not an ideal command and control environment. So we've been given control of these forces so that we can train them, ensure they're responsive and direct them to participate in our exercises, so that were they called to support civil authority, those governors or local state jurisdictions that might need our help, that they would be responsive and capable in the event and also would be able to survive based on the skills that they have learned, trained and focused on.

They ultimately have weapons, heavy weapons and combat vehicles and another service capability at their home station at Fort Stewart, Georgia, but they wouldn't bring that stuff with them. In fact, they're prohibited from bringing it. They would bring their individual weapons, which is the standard policy for deployments in the homeland. Those would be centralized and containerized, and they could only be issued to the soldiers with the Secretary of Defense permission.

So I think, you know, that kind of wraps up our position on this. We're proud to be able to provide this capability. It's all about saving lives, relieving suffering, mitigating great property damage to infrastructure and things like that, and frankly, restoring public confidence in the aftermath of an event like this.

AG: So the use of the weapons would only be decided by SECDEF, the Secretary of Defense. But what about the governors? The SECDEF would have -- Secretary of Defense would have -- would be able to preempt the governors in a decision whether these soldiers would use their weapons on U.S. soil?

MB: No, this basically only boils down to self-defense. Any military force has the inherent right to self-defense. And if the situation was inherently dangerous, then potentially the Secretary of Defense would allow them to carry their weapons, but it would only be for self- and unit-defense. This force has got no role in a civil disturbance or civil unrest, any of those kinds of things.

AG: Matt Rothschild, you've been writing about this in The Progressive magazine. What is your concern?

Matthew Rothschild: Well, I'm very concerned on a number of fronts about this, Amy. One, that NORTHCOM, the Northern Command, that came into being in October of 2002, when that came in, people like me were concerned that the Pentagon was going to use its forces here in the United States, and now it looks like, in fact, it is, even though on its website it says it doesn't have units of its own. Now it's getting a unit of its own.

And Colonel Boatner talked about this unit, what it's trained for. Well, let's look at what it's trained for. This is the 3rd Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat unit that has spent three of the last five years in Iraq in counterinsurgency. It's a war-fighting unit, was one of the first units to Baghdad. It was involved in the battle of Fallujah. And, you know, that's what they've been trained to do. And now they're bringing that training here?

On top of that, one of the commanders of this unit was boasting in the Army Times about this new package of non-lethal weapons that has been designed, and this unit itself is going be able to use, according to that original article. And in fact, the commander was saying he had even tasered himself and was boasting about tasering himself. So, why is a Pentagon unit that's going to be possibly patrolling the streets of the United States involved in using tasers?

AG: Colonel Boatner?

MB: Well, I'd like to address that. That involved a service mission and a service set of equipment that was issued for overseas deployment. Those soldiers do not have that on their equipment list for deploying in the homeland. And again, they have been involved in situations overseas. And having talked to commanders who have returned, those situations are largely nonviolent, non-kinetic. And when they do escalate, the soldiers have a lot of experience with seeing the indicators and understanding it. So, I would say that our soldiers are trustworthy. They can deploy in the homeland, and American citizens can be confident that there will be no abuses.

AG: Matt Rothschild?

MR: Well, you know, that doesn't really satisfy me, and I don't think it should satisfy your listeners and your audience, Amy, because, you know, our people in the field in Iraq, some of them have not behaved up to the highest standards, and a lot of police forces in the United States who have been using these tasers have used them inappropriately.

The whole question here about what the Pentagon is doing patrolling in the United States gets to the real heart of the matter, which is, do we have a democracy here? I mean, there is a law on the books called the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act that says that the president of the United States, as commander-in-chief, cannot put the military on our streets. And this is a violation of that, it seems to me.

President Bush tried to get around this act a couple years ago in the Defense Authorization Act that he signed that got rid of some of those restrictions, and then last year, in the new Defense Authorization Act, thanks to the work of Senator Patrick Leahy and Kit Bond of Missouri, that was stripped away. And so, the President isn't supposed to be using the military in this fashion, and though the President, true to form, appended a signing statement to that saying he's not going to be governed by that. So, here we have a situation where the President of United States has been aggrandizing his power, and this gives him a whole brigade unit to use against U.S. citizens here at home.

AG: Colonel Michael Boatner, what about the Posse Comitatus Act, and where does that fit in when U.S. troops are deployed on U.S. soil?

MR: It absolutely governs in every instance. We are not allowed to help enforce the law. We don't do that. Every time we get a request -- and again, this kind of a deployment is defense support to civil authority under the National Response Framework and the Stafford Act. And we do it all the time, in response to hurricanes, floods, fires and things like that. But again, you know, if we review the requirement that comes to us from civil authority and it has any complexion of law enforcement whatsoever, it gets rejected and pushed back, because it's not lawful.

AG: Matthew Rothschild, does this satisfy you?

MR: No, it doesn't. One of the reasons it doesn't is not by what Boatner was saying right there, but what President Bush has been doing. And if we looked at National Security Presidential Directive 51, that he signed on May 9th of 2007, Amy, this gives the President enormous powers to declare a catastrophic emergency and to bypass our regular system of laws, essentially, to impose a form of martial law.

And if you look at that National Security Presidential Directive, what it says, that in any incident where there is extraordinary disruption of a whole range of things, including our economy, the President can declare a catastrophic emergency. Well, we're having these huge disturbances in our economy. President Bush could today pick up that National Security Directive 51 and say, "We're in a catastrophic emergency. I'm going to declare martial law, and I'm going to use this combat brigade to enforce it."

AG: Colonel Michael Boatner?

MB: The only exception that I know of is the Insurrection Act. It's something that is very unlikely to be invoked. In my 30-year career, it's only been used once, in the LA riots, and it was a widespread situation of lawlessness and violence. And the governor of the state requested that the President provide support. And that's a completely different situation. The forces available to do that are in every service in every part of the country, and it's completely unrelated to the -- this consequence management force that we're talking about.

AG: You mentioned governors, and I was just looking at a piece by Jeff Stein -- he is the national security editor of Congressional Quarterly -- talking about homeland security. And he said, "Safely tucked into the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the last day of September.

"The language doesn't just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to take over the Judiciary Committee" -- this was a piece written last year -- it "runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are Republicans.

"The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, 2007, sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.

"No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill."

The letter, signed by every member of the National Governors Association, said, "This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors … to the federal government."

Colonel Michael Boatner?

MB: That's in the political arena. That has nothing to do with my responsibilities or what I'm -- was asked to talk about here with regard to supporting civil authority in the homeland.


I know it sounds far fetched but shit got me skurred!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Oct 18 2008, 03:00 PM Post #157
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
I believe it!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Julesy Oct 18 2008, 04:25 PM Post #158
Member Avatar
deliciously domestic
Posts:
38,613
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
May 18, 2006
Im scared!

How soon do you think Jesse, before all hell breaks loose?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Denovissimus Oct 19 2008, 04:27 AM Post #159
Member Avatar
Immortal Heretic
Posts:
31,943
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#4
Joined:
May 17, 2006
I've heard of this for many a year, especially around election time. But the fact that for the first time in US history that an army unit is stationed here for the sole purpose of civil unrest really makes me nervous, especially when all indications point to Obama taking the White House....I don't think "they" want him to cause he is not one of "them".

There is what, three weeks before the elections? If we can get to the elections I think we'll be safe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
la anaconda de chocolatee Oct 24 2008, 01:17 PM Post #160
Member Avatar
Skittle Skank
Posts:
27,858
Group:
Super Moderators
Member
#6
Joined:
May 18, 2006
everyone needs to watch this video, and pass it on to everyone in your email list!


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/23/shocking-loss-of-freedom-in-u-s.aspx
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Our users say it best:
"Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used."
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Rowan ruminates · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Theme: Zeta Original Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 2:08 PM Jul 11

Skin orginally created by Malygos, Converted By Axonite of
Infinite Results.

Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy