[Al_U_Card]

I gather that little dick has now secured the right to legally persecute anyone that gets in his way of the rape of Iraq......he can now seize your property if you interfere with the Iraq "security" effort. So much for open debate and protest.....elections are next to go and don't say I didn't warn you.

[Winstonm]

Even worse than that.

Quote

Not only does the order authorizes the Treasury Department to freeze and confiscate the assets of anyone determined "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of hindering the Iraqi government or reconstruction effort, it also authorizes the freezing of assets of anyone who provides "material support" to such a person or group, whether or not the person's support was knowing or intentional

And guess who gets to decide if there is a "significant risk"?

And how about this?

Quote

This story is based on a two-month investigation into Cheney's energy task force; how the vice president pressured cabinet officials to conceal clear-cut evidence of market manipulation during California's energy crisis, and how that subsequently led Cheney to exert executive privilege when lawmakers called on him to turn over documents related to his meetings with energy industry officials who helped draft the National Energy Policy and also gamed California's power market. Truthout spoke with more than a dozen former officials from the Energy Department and FERC as well as current and former energy industry executives all of whom were involved in personal discussions with Cheney relating to the National Energy Policy.

Guess where the SEC records concerning the California energy crisis manipulation were stored? That's right, WTC-7, the building that came down without being hit, the one that was "pulled".

And you missed this one:

Quote

In May 2007, a major presidential National Security Directive is issued, (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), 

NSPD 51 / HSPD 20 is a combined National Security Directive emanating from the White House and Homeland Security. It is tailor-made to fit the premises of both the Pentagon's 2006 "Anti-terrorist Plan" as well Vice President Cheney's 2005 "Contingency Plan". 

The directive establishes procedures for "Continuity of Government" (COG) in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". The latter is defined in NSPD 51/HSPD 20 (henceforth referred to as NSPD 51), as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

"Continuity of Government," or "COG," is defined in NSPD 51 as "a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency."

NSPD 51 has barely been reported by the mainstream media.  There was no press briefing by the White House or by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, which would be the normal practice, given the significance and implications of NSPD 51. The text of NSPD /51 HSPD 20, announced by the White House is not even mentioned on the DHS's website.

This Combined Directive NSPD /51 HSPD 20 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. NSPD 51 allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval  The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement:

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination. (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20,  emphasis added)

Another day in the Empire

[Al_U_Card]

You guys are so totally xxxxxx (edit:rain).....and worse yet is that we're probably next....

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Jul 31 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

You guys are so totally fucked.....and worse yet is that we're probably next....

North American Union and the Amero - check it out.

[helene_t]

Naah, the USians are too politically apathic to colonize Canada, if anything Canada will take over the U.S. Wishfull thinking, maybe ....

[Al_U_Card]

When you invade countries to "protect" your homeland (Sudetenland, anyone?) security, a border country with no defense (the little we have is now in Afghanistan, cleverly sent their at the behest of our soon to be overlords) it is only a matter of time.

[Winstonm]

Quote

"...or to pose a significant risk of committing"

This is an incredibly prescient and telling phrase. It is critical to realize that is is anticipatory. How do you know who poses a significant risk and who makes that decision?

Well, the answer to the second part is the Department of the Treasury.

And how do you know who poses a significant risk?
Profiling?
That could be: war protestors, dissenters, disallusioned veterans...the list is endless.

Of course, the comforting part is there is absolutely no provision for judiciary intervention to argue guilt or innocence.

The "Decider" has already made the decision. Question his authority and you risk losing everything....house, cars, bank accounts, IRAs, stocks, bonds.....

One may argue that the intent is not there to use this executive order on the truly innocent. However, in orders of this magnitude there should be no room for subjective interpretation - and the right to present a case in court simply must be included else you have no law - only a dictatorial order.

[Al_U_Card]

WAKE UP!

Your liberties will not be protected by Access Hollywood.

Lindsey Lohan is not the center of your civilization.

W and the neocons are diddling you out of your birthright.

Your forefathers foresaw this foreplay for power and set up constitutional bulwarks against it. So not go gentle into that bad night. The experiment must not end by being thrown in the garbage. It is noble and deserves all of your attention and devotion as it has given you what you have and will ensure keeping it in the future. The PTB want to become the PTWon't let you have any freedoms that interfere with their control and power over you.

[Winstonm]

Quote

"On its face, this is the greatest encroachment on civil liberties since the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who was a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration and author of an article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.

Fein said the sanctions against suspected violators would amount to "a financial death penalty." The executive order not only calls for the freezing of assets of anyone who directly or indirectly aids our enemies in Iraq, it prohibits anyone else from providing "funds, goods or services" to a blacklisted individual. In other words, a friend or relative could have his or her assets seized for trying to help someone whose bank account is suddenly frozen. An attorney who offered legal help could risk of losing everything he or she owned.

Did I hear someone say Ron Paul? Or was that just the snooze button going off again.

[Al_U_Card]

Mr. Paul is the red herring "lightning rod" that is used à la any fringe candidate to draw the attention of the real protesters so that they can be lumped into a camp and discredited en masse.

His actual record is somewhat questionable and his candidacy is laughable.

I picked the following up from the Break for News website.

An example of how Paul supporters SPIN things to make him look like a better candidate than he actually is. Keeping in mind, I don't support ANY of them.

Some important facts about Ron Paul's record, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles...23paulfacts.htm

* He has never voted to raise taxes.

Yet, why doesn’t he fight the tax system all together, since he agrees with Ed Brown and others that there is no law to even pay taxes? Likewise, he’s voted not to raise the minimum wage standards during a time when America could really use the relief, but like everything Paul votes NO on, the bills usually go through by majority vote anyway. If it was up to Paul, NOTHING would ever go through because it’s his job just to vote NO (following in his heroe's footsteps with their “Just Say No” campaign obviously).

•He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

Good, the man can balance a check book. Does he think he’d do any better than Ross Perot in getting the country out of trillions of dollars in debt? Oh, abolishing the Federal Reserve will magically take care of that problem. Despite Paul’s “balanced budget” he’s asking for tens of millions of dollars in his district including $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp, and $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research with another $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. Man wants to spend $13 million dollars, of tax payer money, on Shrimp in Texas! Paul leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects at nearly $75 million dollars! Yet voted against giving Mother Theresa a congressional medal of honor that cost $1000 bucks!

* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He’s appealing the“Super Patriots”, who up until his “internet revolution” were the only people who actually showed up at any of his campaign rallies. His answer to the VA Tech shootings was “we need more guns on campuses”. More guns and “Liberty” will solve all of our problems according to Paul, and a solid foundation in the Bible, the true word of God. Ask Paul why there are so many gun crimes in America, say compared to Canada. His answer will automatically go into our “God Given Second Amendment Rights” and completely dance around the question of violence on American streets. Or he’ll make some new comments about “Swift Footed Black African Youths”, and how “12 year old Black boys are as big as men so they should be tried as adults”.

* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

Yet he’s rated as just over 50%, barely passing, in donation transparency, and voted YES for unregulated "soft money" contributions. He’s spent TWICE as much over the past 10 years to keep his seat in congress as any of his opponents in any election, spending over $1 Million dollars in the past decade to keep a seat that he first stated should have a limited term. The man started his very first congressional term with the hypocritical statement that there should be limited terms, and here he is 10 years later holding the same seat, spending roughly $250,000 dollars EACH election to stay in office.

* He has never taken a government-paid junket.

Yet accepts $$$ donations from fringe, racist extremist groups such as Storm Front, from known government psyop programs such as the JBS, as well as the church of Scientology, and endorsements from former KKK grand wizards such as David Duke. He accepts donation and support from the “911 Truth Movement”, but tries to distance himself from this group when speaking with “mainstream” news outlets. Why doesn’t he distance himself from David Duke the way he does with the “Truth Movement”?

* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

Though still isn’t convinced that Bush/Cheney should be impeached! Been paying attention the last 8 years Paul? Still not convinced that Bush and Cheney are in direct violation of increased power to the executive branch? Why shouldn’t they be impeached, Pauly? You voted to impeach Democrat Bill Clinton for half the crimes and misdemeanors, why not Republican Bush?

•He voted against the Patriot Act.

Though he voted for enhanced monitering of “terror suspects”. He also voted against net neutrality which would help assure the freedom of internet communications and a non-taxed system of regulatory mandates, where all platforms are treated equally.

•He voted against the Iraq war.

But voted for unchecked military retaliation after the events of 911 and voted YES for continued military recruitment on school campuses. Have your cake and eat it too, eh Pauly?

* He wants to remove Marijuana from the list of controlled substances.

Because he wants the vote of the “stoner crowd” and to start Hemp manufacturing to pay off some of the nations debts. He probably also wants more room in the prisons to put the real criminals, the Blacks and Mexicans. The founding fathers grew Hemp, so Paul thinks it’s a great idea! Yet another thing that will get Paul some votes, but like abolishing the Fed, he’d never be able to make true on these promises even if he were elected. It’s empty posturing in order to get more votes and donations, all the candidates do it about one issue or another.

-----------------------
-----------------------

I'm not against guns or hemp farming, but see how the man sits on the fence and his supporters only promote the “positive” sides of Paul, even though, keeping true to his contradictory nature, he actually vaguely votes FOR the very things he “officially” is voting against? Such as voting no on the Patriot Acts, but yes on monitering, no on the war, but yes on unchecked military retaliation and continued recruitment drives.

So he’s #1 in military donations, that won’t necessarily equate to votes. So he got 400,000 votes in 1988 and trailed 3rd behind Bush and Dukakis, he still lost by millions and millions of votes! Even if he gets the 1 Million votes in 2008 that his campaign is estimating for 2008, he'll still lose by multi-millions of votes.

Paul coming from 3rd Party roots, you think he’d at least ONCE mention the origins of the 3rd Party which was the ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. Will Paul ever give credit to the initial reasons behind the 3rd Party, or will he, like the John Birch Society, continue to cover for the deceptions of the Freemason organization as well as the Vatican, and continue spitting into the wind about the “Communist Threat” that’s afflicting America?

And in the end, the whole debate was pointless, because Paul won’t get 1% of the vote. Sad truth, on election night, if we even make it there, you’ll hardly hear anything about Ron Paul and his “Truther” supporters will keep crying “censorship” and “conspiracy”.

I think Paul's actual purpose is to draw "Truthers" out in the open to further consolidate the "movement", and serve "911 Truth" a massive defeat.
_________________
www.nwowatcher.com

[Winstonm]

So you are sayings its check and mate. Game over.

(edit: if so, I sadly agree.)

[mike777]

Paul does have over 64 earmarks totalling 400 million plus...
miilions for shrimp musuem and millions more for shrimp research. Not sure why my federal taxes are paying for this and not basic cancer research but ........maybe he is too busy reading that wiretapping bill, assuming anyone, I mean anyone read the thing and understood it before voting on it.

[DrTodd13]

You have to understand this. "Earmarks" are not votes to spend money. They are votes to allocate money that they have already agreed to spend. They may say "We'll spend 10 billion on culture this year." If there are no earmarks then some agency gets to decide how to spend the 10 billion. If there are earmarks then the agency must first satisfy the earmarks and anything left over they can spend however they like. So if Ron Paul proposes an earmark of 10 million for a performing arts center then that is just trying to get his district's share of the 10 billion that they have already agreed to spend. So, he may vote in favor of his own earmarks but he votes against the 10 billion. If his vote against the 10 billion is futile then his district still gets some of the money that was stolen from them directed back into the district.

[mike777]

DrTodd13, on Aug 8 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

You have to understand this.  "Earmarks" are not votes to spend money.  They are votes to allocate money that they have already agreed to spend.  They may say "We'll spend 10 billion on culture this year."  If there are no earmarks then some agency gets to decide how to spend the 10 billion.  If there are earmarks then the agency must first satisfy the earmarks and anything left over they can spend however they like.  So if Ron Paul proposes an earmark of 10 million for a performing arts center then that is just trying to get his district's share of the 10 billion that they have already agreed to spend.  So, he may vote in favor of his own earmarks but he votes against the 10 billion.  If his vote against the 10 billion is futile then his district still gets some of the money that was stolen from them directed back into the district.

I strongly disagree. If there were no earmarks another option is to not spend the money. There are more than two options here. A vote to spend money on blind programs does not mean you go to jail if you do not spend the money.
You are legally allowed to spend less or spend nothing still.

Even better do not vote to spend 10 billion on blind nonspecific culture programs. I assume you are allowed to vote no.

Of course many of us vote for our reps to get our fair share of the pork, so we get what we deserve.

400 million less for aids or for education or to help the starving.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I strongly disagree. If there were no earmarks another option is to not spend the money.

Government NOT spending money it is allocated/?!?! Now THERE"S a headline.
That would be like giving an alcoholic an ice-cold six-pack and expecting him not to drink it - some things just ain't gonna happen.

[Al_U_Card]

Anyone know why FEMA is building "shelters" that include chains attached to the floors?

http://video.google....810561868116434

[Winstonm]

Quote

Anyone know why FEMA is building "shelters" that include chains attached to the floors?

Obviously to keep the delusional hurricane victims from breaking free and running back out into the storm.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, perhaps when martial law is declared, they will need a place to incarcerate all of the gun-toters that object and resist the call to disarm and peaceably submit to government control. I would expect that the survivalist militias will get a few new adherants when the choice is liberty or death.....again.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Aug 13 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

Quote

Anyone know why FEMA is building "shelters" that include chains attached to the floors?

Obviously to keep the delusional hurricane victims from breaking free and running back out into the storm.

Yet, they don't have enough money to help Katrina victims rebuild.....