Don't We Have a Constitution, Not a King? »
Posted By gatitabonitasen 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsAs the nation focused on whether Congress would exercise its constitutional duty to cut funding for the war, Bush quietly issued an unconstitutional bombshell that went virtually unnoticed by the corporate media. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the h
Read Full Story at alternet.org »
Submitted By:
gatitabonitasen
Never end a wish without whispering
I Belive ! ... and make 2008 your dream -come -True-Year .
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 308
-
25%
crespi1 year, 4 months ago
Evil kings were (when the people got a chance) either killed outright or put in a dungeon for a long, long time.
I'd be happy with the latter for our little King wannabe.
Reply-
71%
rimbaud1 year, 4 months ago
It would be an interesting Reality-TV stunt to kidnap the him and have him wake up in Gitmo, and no one tell him it's just a stunt for three days.
Reply-
-
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
This is what you DemLibs wanted Bush to do when Katrina hit....it was an emergency....take over everything, run everything, disregard the states Governor, disregard the mayor and run everything...bring in the military....isn't it? You wanted Bush do to everything, even remove fallen trees and run the pumps himself, put everyone into temporary emergency housing until they can go back....isn't this what you cried for? You asked for it....
Reply-
-
67%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
So you don't remember the De,mLibs crying out...
Where was Bush? Why didn't he take charge?
Why didn't he send in the military earlier?
Why has Bush not led the National Guard in on a supply truck?
Why wasn't he directing people to the 1000 buses that mayor Nagin had to use?
Why wasn't he helping guide people across the bridge?
Why wasn't he on the ground directing aid into NO?
Why wasn't he leading a police patrol to protect people?
Why wasn't he changing bandages on sick people?
I mean you blame him for everything and for not doing anything. He could not do anything because of the lack of the powers to take charge in that kind of emergency. Now he signs something that may help in a similar emergency and you cry he is taking too much power....Geez...make up your minds...do you want him to be able to help immediately in a crisis or not?
Reply-
50%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
What an asinine post! No one asked Bush to direct traffic, although his intellect can barely manage that. What the people of New Orleans needed was a well structured and organized rescue effort coordinated by FEMA. What Bush failed to provide was a competent administrator. Instead he appointed his idiotic friend Brown. Then Bush failed to put pressure on Brown to shape up sooner.
There were news reports of truckers carrying relief supplies stopped at the border of the disaster zone because they did not have the proper permits. They were supposed to go to Atlanta to get the permits from FEMA. Just one example of the breakdown of organization and logic.
Everything you wrote in your post is fantasy generated in your over-wrought mind that you attribute to Democrats. In your mind, if you thought it, it must be true. In your hate for democrats you are imagining all these evil things.
Reply -
67%
ProudBlueTexan1 year, 2 months ago
I simply wondered, 'how could bush create an agency as f***ed up as FEMA?"
The LAST thing I would wish on N.O. is for george w bush to operate those pumps himself.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
foksipayne1 year, 4 months ago
I don't remember Katrina vics getting ALL THE HELP THEY NEEDED
And I don't think we wanted to start a WAR because of a hurricane. KOT me thinks you have ur head in ur arse again
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 4 months ago
From the actual directive: "This policy establishes 'National Essential Functions,' prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies... that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency."
News flash: it only refers to "executive departments and agencies" already under control of the president, like FEMA.
In other words, it means the president will have a greater ability to actually do something when something like Katrina hits again. IT means the president can step in and take control instead of holding useless meetings.
It's funny to see the liberal bias at work. Talk about fear-mongering: "Bush is trying to be king!"
lol, what silly, funny liberals. They complain Bush did nothing about Katrina, and when he streamlines the process, they whine about that, too. OH, what a knee-slapper you guys are! lol
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
lum-chate1 year, 4 months ago
Don't compare Nixon to Bush. Nixon was very bright, a self made man an did a lot of great things for this country before he made the mistake of covering up a bungled buglary which he certainly didn't authorize. On top of the he won the 72 election by a larger plurality than any president before or since 18,000,000 votes.
Nixon was a statesmen,Bush is an idealogue don't compare Watergate with 6 years of bleak bankrupt policies of Bush which put our nation in the sad situation we have today!
Reply-
-
50%
lum-chate1 year, 4 months ago
Nixon opened up China, stood tow to tow with Breshnev when we needed someone to do so, was an enlightened conservative not an idealogue who knew when to hold 'em and knew when to fold them. I stood with him till the end. If they decide to pick the carcus of this guy I'll join with them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
67%
miklkit1 year, 4 months ago
Ok. Let's say that in late summer or early fall 2008 something happens. Chancellor Bush declares martial law and cancels the election. I need to know where the Police, National Guard, and Army will stand on this issue.
Reply-
0%
not2needy1 year, 4 months ago
Better yet, where would the people of the United States stand on this issue? I don't think they would be very receptive.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
100%
SpazMat1 year, 4 months ago
You moron, everyone would lose.
The whole premise of conservative vs liberal is that the conservatives used a conservative interpretation of the constitution that gave little power to the central government, and liberals allowed a liberal interpretation of the constitution that allowed more power to the government.
By that definition, the right should be the first to fight any attempted coup by any government official, GOP or not.
I gave my pledge to uphold and protect the constitution from all enemies, domestic or foreign, so even if I voted for him, I would be part of the loyals - to the constitution.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Actually not. The EO has given him no more power than any President has had under a series of EO's since FDR...see my long post later. This is the exact same thing Clinton did when the previous EO ran out and he renewed it. Again see my posts about that later. Every President since FDR has renewed the EO's for the same reason. In reality, I think tht GW should have put an end to the sequence of contiuous EO's but he did not. Obviously there is someone else pushing these and I hate to say who it probably is. BTW....The Bilderbergers are meeting.
Reply-
100%
SpazMat1 year, 4 months ago
You mis-read me.
I don't have an issue with this EO, equivilent EOs have been around at least since we started worrying about "surviving" war with Russia.
It is a requirement that the government be able to support the propogation of constitutionaly designated power across an emergency, and the executive branch, by definition, are the ones who should execute it, within the bounds legally determined by congress.
My issue was that when whoever it was said that Bush would stage a coup under the shield of this EO, and that people would rise against it, you said the left would lose. Everyone would lose.
Sorry about the "moron" comment. I've read some more of your comments, and they are generally reasoned, but I let myself get fired up over a non-constitutional transfer (or seizure) of power breaking down to political sides.
And the Bilderbergers are just pawns of the Illuminati, and are running a smoke screen ;^)
Reply-
-
0%
SpazMat1 year, 4 months ago
A lot of them are lib bashing, but aside from dis-agreeing with them, look at the logic. He is not calling people morons (blush), and generally has his facts in order. You might not agree with his interpretation, or even presentation, but that is not what I was speaking to.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
50%
foksipayne1 year, 4 months ago
KOT that statement is just stupid.
The gov't would lose. the PEOPLE would win and once again be able to form the country the way it was meant to be.
or the gov't would nuke us and make the land uninhabitable. It's so good at that.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
hamy1 year, 4 months ago
Really? You still trust him at all? He has proven to be a liar. He has proven to be a cheat. You don't think that he would install martial law in an instant?
You deserve him then.
Reply-
-
36%
ryan6011 year, 4 months ago
There we go. I was waiting for someone to bring up Clinton, when this obviously has nothing to do with Clinton whatsoever.
You neoclowns are so worked up all the time about Clinton, it's funny. He gets caught sleeping with an intern, and you all act like he roams around the suburbs at night setting small puppies on fire. The guy hasn't been in office for seven years! Get over it!
We're talking about Bush, and what Bush did that had nothing to do with his predecessor.
Stay on topic, pal.
Reply-
17%
PatrioticAmerican1 year, 4 months ago
what has Bush done except what he feels is the right thing to do in protecting you so you can come on to netscape and spew your hatred for him.
Reply-
0%
Lurch1 year, 4 months ago
Yeah, he really helped the 3,000 victims of 9/11 by ignoring those `dire` and imminent warnings of AQ hijackings in America.
Same as he really helped us by letting OBL go, or invading the wrong country based on lies, or still not having a f`in clue how to get us out of Iraq.
Bush has ******ed on our constitution to help us.
He illegally spies on his political enemies and anybody on the left to help us.
He has shirked even more taxes onto the backs of the middle class and future generations by bankrupting this country for the benefit of his cronies, to help us naturally.
He has created more anti-american terrorists than OBL, Qhaddafi, and Saddam combined.
With help like Bush`s, who needs enemies.
Reply-
-
xyzzComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Lurch says: Yeah, he really helped the 3,000 victims of 9/11 by ignoring those `dire` and imminent warnings of AQ hijackings in America.
Same as he really helped us by letting OBL go, or invading the wrong country based on lies.
So you are talking about Clinton....who ignored the dire warnings about OBL for 8 years and didn't bomb him when he was in our sights, and started a war based on lies in a country that didn't attack us and was no threat to ever do so, Serbia...and we are still there....ENRON was his too....
Reply-
70%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
The topic is about the danger from Bush's over-reaching desire for more power and the possibility of his becoming a dictator. What does that have to do with Clinton. Clinton never was a threat to become a dictator. You continue to look behind you when the danger is ahead of you.
Clinton did not ignore bin Laden. The attack on the USS Cole was widely believed to have been ordered by bin Laden. Clinton wanted to bomb his base. However, the CIA refused or was unable to confirm bin Laden's involvement.
Unlike Bush, Clinton did not invent evidence. He did not browbeat and threaten the CIA to change the evidence or the interpretation of it. Clinton listened to his staff and behaved legally. Bush had no compunctions about inventing evidence, falsifying data, harassing the CIA to produce evidence that conformed to HIS preconceived ideas.
In Serbia, the bombings were ordered by NATO, not by Clinton. He did not issue an executive order bypassing congress. He did not order secret
Reply-
29%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
bombings like Nixon did in Cambodia. Besides the bombings in Serbia were ordered because of the ethnic cleansing that Slobodan Milosevic was perpetrating on the Kosovars. Are you saying that you approve of ethnic cleansing and that NATO should not have stopped Milosevic?
One of your conservative colleagues,LUVMYPREZ, wrote that one of Bush's achievements was the withdrawal of US troops from Serbia. So, again, you are wrong. We do not have any more troops there. Actually she was wrong too. Bush did not withdraw the troops. The IFOR peacekeeping mission simply ended and passed the chore to EUFOR. Bush did not withdraw the troops. They simply came home when their job was done.
With Enron, are you saying that because the collapse happened during Clinton's tenure, it was his fault? Therefore the WTC bombing must be Bush's fault because it happened during HIS tenure.
Actually your statement is idiotic and laughable. Ken Lay was a favorite of the Republican party. George HW Bush..
Reply-
80%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
actually offered the post of Secretary of Commerce to him, which he turned down because he thought it was not important or lucrative enough. Lay contributed heaviy to the Republican party, because the cult of greed among the Republicans was exactly what he believed in.
I've had enough of your ignorant, nonsensical posts. I'm going to bed now.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
rewqers1 year, 4 months ago
I agree that too many freedoms are taken for granted.An individual can only learn to exploit by being exploited,thus truly appreciating our freedoms that we take for granted.It all comes down to doing the right thing and what you think is the right thing to do at any situation.Our freedoms are exploited for everyones amusement.Please do the same all american folk.Bush was elected for a reason.Hatred is simply a realm.Freedoms are fought for,taken for granted and left for all to capitalize on.Join in the fun.
Reply -
100%
foksipayne1 year, 4 months ago
patriotamerican:
"what has bush done except what he feels is the ...."
ANSWER: EVERYTHING WRONG!!!
If he had only taken half of the good advice ppl have given him, maybe there wouldn't be so much hatred being spewed.
WE ARE SPEWING BECAUSE IT IS DISGUSTING WHAT HE"S DONE TO THE REPUTATION OF OUR NATION!!!
Reply -
100%
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
What has Bush done?
-subverted a national election
-subverted the freedoms of speech and association and peaceable assembly in the name of presidential security
-been a public embarassment in front of allied heads of state
-reacted to a terroist attack with illegal spying on Americans, unfair and repressive travel restrictions, and invasive searches
-permitted imprisonment on foreign soil without recourse to lawyers or courts
-endorsed torture of political prisoners
-killed 3500 Americans and an untold number of foreigners
-paid trillions of dollars to his friends to purchase for
America the ill will of all Muslim nations and most of the others too.
-put our nation much deeper in debt to finance the destruction of a nation and the deaths of thousands of people who have done nothing to us.
-stifled scientific research and edited scientific results for political ends
-allowed his vice-president to get drunk and shoot someone with impunity
-blame his own appointees for his errors
Reply-
100%
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
-failed to make wise and timely judicial appointments
-cut veterans benefits
-attempted simultaneously to deny military pay raises and cut taxes for the wealthy
-denied the right of all citizens to equal protection under the law.
-these presidential directives-Ha!
These are just well-known things, and only some of them. It is frightening indeed to think what he has done in secret.
Reply
-
-
0%
slate1 year, 4 months ago
Ryan,,, I didn't give one hoot if Clinton or any politican sleeps around, though I'd hope they would get a room and be more descrete about it. Clinton did so much more than that to prove he was a cheat and lier. Things that we are seeing today so him being gone fora while has no bearing.
I'm a neo-monkey so get your mane calling 'right' next time.
Reply-
0%
ryan6011 year, 4 months ago
"Ryan,,, I didn't give one hoot if Clinton or any politican sleeps aroud, though I'd hope they would get a room and be more descrete about it. Clinton did so much more than that to prove he was a cheat and lier. Things that we are seeing today so him being gone fora while has no bearing."
Even if I was to concede that, which I'm not, you didn't answer my question.
WHAT DOES CLINTON HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE ABOUT BUSH AND HIS PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE?
Reply-
0%
slate1 year, 4 months ago
LOL don't pop a vein!
Other than trying to keep things in perspective nothing,,, well other than history that gets repeated,,,, ok let's turn over the leaf of what if Hillary had that sort of power,,,, that would be scary,,,, Bush isn't about to call for Marshal Law,,, saying so just falls into the leftwing scare tactic.
Reply-
0%
Lurch1 year, 4 months ago
Bush said he was against empire building.
Said combat operations were over in Iraq in 2003.
Said our troops had everything they needed.
Said we did not need any more troops.
Said he would follow the 9/11 commission after trying to derail it.
Said he would not rest until OBL was brought to justice, before he let him go.
Said he was the environmental president, before he flip-flopped, which was before he flop-flipped.
Said a president must have an exit strategy (referring to Clinton in 1999), before he said he himself didn`t need one.
Said he was for free trade before he was against it, which was before he flip-flopped on that one.
Said he was for smaller government before he took a surplus and made it the largest debt in history.
Said he was for lower taxes before he raised our tax burden more than any other president in history.
What on earth makes you think you can trust him now?
I wouldn`t want Hillary to have the power Bush is trying to steal!
Reply
-
-
-
-
80%
el-jefe1 year, 4 months ago
Actually, this does have something to do with Clinton, and is on topic. Under Clinton, we were slowly moving toward a civil war, with several years of domestic violence and terrorism preceding it. Remember Oklahoma City? Remember all the "Militias"? That was a response (albeit a misguided one) to the creeping takeover of the nanny state.
Funny how a lot of that just evaporated once the Republicans took over Congress.
But that isn't all...Clinton committed a High Crime by trying to subvert the government. Not by sleeping with an intern, but by lying under oath about it. That's pretty good...Scooter Libby gets 3 years for lying to an FBI agent when NOT under oath, and Clinton didn't even lose his job for lying on a sworn, signed deposition!
And how is perjury subverting the government? Well, consider. If the President is answerable to the courts, but can lie freely to them on any subject without fear of penalty, do the courts really have any authority over him?
Reply-
0%
jdhatl1 year, 4 months ago
Clinton is not relevant. In fact, no presidential comparisons are possible because all of our presidents till now have been reasonable human beings at least. Bush shows a complete disdain for rational thought, unless your desire is to cause mayhem and destruction in the world.. Clinton, Watergate, JFK, Carter, LBJ, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Lincoln, Jefferson, they all have no bearing whatsoever because none of them would have done anything like this banana state dictator type we're stuck with thanks to morons like you. We have good reason to be afraid that he has no intention of leaving office anytime soon
Reply-
0%
el-jefe1 year, 4 months ago
Funny, Bush's foreign policy is very similar to Wilson's, perhaps more so than any other president before or since.
And Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for ALL citizens, not just for those accused of terrorist acts.
Jackson condoned mistreatment of "enemy combatants", and Filmore's stance on immigration was extremely racist and isolationist.
None of them would have done anything like this "banana state dictator"? Many of them surpassed some of his excesses!
I'm a Republican, and I'm not ashamed of it. And I do NOT support Bush's policies toward Iraq, and have not done so since 2002. When he does something right, I acknowledge it. And when he does something wrong, unlike some of my fellow Republicans, I wince and say, "that wasn't one of his best moves". And I do so publically.
I was much, much more concerned that Clinton was going to "take over the government" back in 1994 than I am that Bush is going to do so in 2007.
Reply-
-
100%
el-jefe1 year, 4 months ago
Well, perhaps I should clarify that. I wasn't really afraid I'd wake up one morning to find that Clinton had declared himself "President for Life".
On the other hand, it wasn't too far-fetched to see that by 2000, we could have legislation requiring all Americans to turn in certain types of firearms, followed by knocks on the door and house searches for everyone who had ever owned one of those certain firearms and who had failed to produce one. And that would have led to bloodshed on a scale that hadn't been seen in this country since the 1960s, or possibly even the 1920s. Perhaps not as chaotic a breakdown of order as is taking place in Iraq today, but certainly something much more frightening and violent than all but a handful of Americans could remember.
To put a fine point on it, we'd be looking at something like a repeat of the Rodney King riots once every six months or so, and a scaled down version of Oklahoma city on a monthly basis.
Reply-
100%
lfergie8121 year, 4 months ago
"On the other hand, it wasn't too far-fetched to see that by 2000, we could have legislation requiring all Americans to turn in certain types of firearms, followed by knocks on the door and house searches for everyone who had ever owned one of those certain firearms and who had failed to produce one. "
You should really be worried now with homeland security and the patriotic act in full force. What you're saying never had a chance to happen in 2000 but it sure does now.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Trichronon1 year, 4 months ago
Wow, what a subversion of history.
The domestic terrorists of the '90s found justification in the big-government hate talk of Newt Gingrich. The logic was to take down the Democratic Congress by any means. They did it by telling lower class white males that their problems were due to government interference in their freedoms, and in particular the transference of their rights and jobs to minorities. It boomeranged on them in Oklahoma City.
This is exactly why it is so important to ensure that rhetoric is grounded in reason.
Finally, Clinton never lied in his deposition: he was given a definition of sexual intercourse by the prosecution that precluded the nature of his contact with the intern. Were he to have answered any differently, THEN he would have been perjuring himself. The testimony was presented to the public without the distorted definition, leading to the presumption that he HAD perjured himself.
Reply-
100%
el-jefe1 year, 4 months ago
Wow, so that's really novel. So, you're saying Oklahoma City is all Newt Gingrich's fault?
O...K. Gee, I remember distinctly reading that Timothy McVeigh claimed it was revenge for burning down the Branch Davidian compound at Waco with 80 people inside of it. I don't ever recall reading that he found himself "inspired" or "encouraged" by anything Gingrich or any of his "contract with America" buddies said or did.
On the other hand, I do recall the book, The Turner Diaries mentioned as a source of McVeigh's ideas several times.
As an aside, I once met David Koresh. Didn't know who he was, this was long before the siege. I didn't speak to him...he pretty much creeped me out.
Oh, and Clinton did lie. I've read that description; it was not of sexual intercourse but of sexual contact as described in a number of statutes. By any reasonable interpretation of that statute, Clinton and Lewinsky had sexual contact...and Clinton denied this.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
A Clinton Third Term: Nightmare or Reality?
The Facts:
* President Clinton has publicly stated that he wants a third term.
* Associates of President Clinton have also mentioned this scenario
* President Clinton shows no respect for the law and has displayed lack of integrity and lack of moral character.
President Clinton seems to be consumed with greed and a lust for power.
But what about that pesky 22nd Amendment to the Constitution? Isn't that a bar to Clinton's plans?
Most people aren't aware that Clinton was able to amend the Arkansas Constitution in order to run for another term as Governor.
But there's an easier way to accomplish what President Clinton would like. He's already shown an amazing proficiency in using one of his favorite tools of manipulation--the Presidential Executive Order (EO). His proclivity for governing by the use of EO's is unsurpassed in the history of this country's Presidency.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Unfortunately, Congress has likewise shown a similar propensity for falling asleep at the wheel and allowing this to occur unchallenged.
What Freeper can forget Clinton's infamous attempt to usurp states' power by quietly presenting EO 13083 ("Federalism") while he was overseas in England sipping cold brews in the local pub? This cleverly written and unnumbered (i.e. hard to find) EO was disguised as a harmless document and quietly posted on the White House web site in the hopes that it would go unnoticed.
Another matter to consider: In October of this year, the transfer of domestic emergency powers will take place, going from the military to the Justice Department. 19 Could this be because Bill Clinton has specific things in mind during this election year?
In effect, it appears that Clinton is setting the stage to govern by EO. After all is said and done, the final question becomes, "Can he really do this?"
Reply-
73%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
The answer could very well be "Yes, he can." Essentially, under the State of Emergency legislation that was passed by Congress years ago, and under which we are still living today, the President can declare anything that he wants.
Some people claim that the only check on Clinton's emergency powers are those found in Admiralty Law. What is Admiralty Law as opposed to Common Law?
Admiralty Law is the law of the international contracts and is not constitutional law. Admiralty jurisdiction has been conferred to the courts, thus displacing the Common Law.
There is a whole body of thought and law to the effect that the President could use his Emergency Powers to indefinitely set aside the Constitution, and the Common Law courts.
While we do not pretend to be experts in whether Admiralty Law would effectively and legally operate outside the Constitution during a time when Emergency Powers are being invoked, we do know someone who is: President William Jefferson Clinton.
Reply-
100%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
What a bunch of crap. I read the wikipedia entry. It states that Article III, section 2 of the United States consitution confers jurisdiction of maritime Admiralty laws to the federal courts. So it is constitutional law.
The National Emergency Act was first proposed under NIXON, then passed in 1976 under Ford. The only item I can find so far about Clinton is EO 12947, which was NOT a declaration of general emergency. It merely declared an embargo against terrorist organizations and countries, INCLUDING OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Clinton has never proposed declaring a national emergency and implementing the level of consolidation of power that Bush is trying to implement now.
Again, you keep looking backward when the danger lies in the road AHEAD of you.
Whatever imaginary danger your paranoid mind conjured up about Clinton, listen, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Clinton is history. Bush is the danger now. Whatever fears you had about Clinton can be laid to rest. Be afraid of Bush NOW.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
25%
tkyrchncs1 year, 4 months ago
It doesn't make any difference to me whether anyone, even I, may think our president is a "bad person". What is disastrous for the country is to have a bad president. All my good friend Repub debating partners wince at the mention of this one's name. They aren't even any fun any more. They are as mortified as our Dem group is outraged. We are all of us friends for decades hoping we can just eek by another year and a half waiting to exhale. As for Clinton, even he finally did what he should have done from the start and admitted his actions. I would have said, "Yeah, that Monica, she likes powerful men. Knows how to show it too. Now about our health care system..." Defuse the bomb as quickly as possible. Politicos on both sides had to feign outrage to keep women's votes, but they all actually admired him or felt bad for him that he got caught doing the same thing they all do.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY REGARDING
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, I declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") and the means of delivering such weapons. Because the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1994, and extended on November 14, 1995 and November 14, 1996, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 1997.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
-WILLIAM J. CLINTON-
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 4 months ago
Bill Clinton has been quoted as stating in his first campaign bid for the presidency that If elected I will govern by executive order. He has kept his word by implementing more American sovereignty-threatening orders than any president! Several of his Executive Orders (PDD's) have been sealed and the actual contents are not even known by Congress!
By the Way, All Executive Orders, Presidential Decision Directives, Presidential Proclamations, Presidential Declarations and Treaties are considered executive orders when the President without the authority or approval of Congress institutes them. Unfortunately many of these orders are secretive and some have been withheld and even removed from the federal register. Others are only published in part. For example, in the case of Clinton's PDD # 25, even members of the Congress and Senate have been denied access to its complete text. This is the order that places the U.S. Military under United Nations authority.
Reply-
100%
sinophil491 year, 4 months ago
KingofTruth - Why do you keep flogging a dead horse? Clinton is not the president. He did not become a dictator. He did not imprison any political prisoners from the Republican party. He poses no more danger to your fragile Republican mind. All the fears you had about Clinton should be dissipated by now. Clinton is now just an imaginary boogyman to haunt your nightmares, but not a physical danger any longer. He can't harm you anymore. You still have this Clinton-phobia. Perhaps a little prozac may help.
The current president, who has TRULY shown an overweening desire for power, secrecy, world dominance, and suppression of dissent is whom you should fear. The danger is NOW; the danger is in BUSH.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
hamy1 year, 4 months ago
For GOD'S SAKE! Clinton is not the President any more!!!! Bush is the president and will be for the next year and a half!!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ades1 year, 4 months ago
Ok... so for arguments sake, we'll assume Bush is the most honorable public servant to sit in the oval office. Great.
Now tell me, who is going to be in that chair in 3 years, or 20, or 50? The legislation he passes has deep potential for abuse. History teaches us that power corrupts and eventually we will have to deal with a grab at tyranny.
Democracy was designed to gaurd against that and he just keeps pi55ing on that ideal.
Reply-
100%
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
a "directive" is NOT a law. For this to become the law, both houses of Congress must pass it, reconcile and then it must be signed by the President.
The President can write anything he wants and sign it, but, if push comes to shove and he tries to grab this power, Congress would or at least SHOULD stop him.
If they did not, and Bush attempted to skip the elections, I would HOPE that Congress would then fast track an impeachment. IF they did not, it would definitely be time for a revolution.
This scenario of cancelling the election, though, is so farfetched and paranoid as to be just about laughable -- although it seems as if many believe it is a real possibility.
If nothing else, his MOM would slap him down on that if he tried.
Reply-
75%
Lurch1 year, 4 months ago
>The President can write anything he wants and sign it, but, if push comes to shove and he tries to grab this power, Congress would or at least SHOULD stop him.
With 49 do-nothing rubber-stamping Republicans still in the Senate, what are the odds of Congress actually doing the right thing?
Brings up a saying I once heard, `trust, but verify`. I want verification that the spoiled-wannabe king is not going to get his dream of becoming king.
>This scenario of cancelling the election, though, is so farfetched and paranoid as to be just about laughable -- although it seems as if many believe it is a real possibility.
So was an invasion of another country that never threatened nor attacked us. So was a president getting away with illegal spying on Americans. So was a president choosing to torture and imprison innocents indefinitely.
Face it, somebody stole our country and we don`t have it back yet.
Reply
-
-
-
-