New World Order Marchs On....

Rabbi Dali Rick · Post by **Rabbi Dali Rick** » Tue May 29, 2007 1:50 pm

Bush makes power grab -- "Emergency Directive", without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

>>>> CLICK HERE !! <<<<<<

the rebbi

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue May 29, 2007 2:21 pm

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;.

That's it. Call off the election, we gotta have "continuity of government."

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Tue May 29, 2007 2:57 pm

Yuck! Why wasn't this plastered across the front page of newspapers and the lead story on television and radio?! (I miss being able to receive WORT, I am guessing that they had something about it, if I had been listening at the right time.)

Maybe it is time to look into emigrating...?

B.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Tue May 29, 2007 7:14 pm

They know IT's coming and there's not much time left to really be prepared.

And they won't tell you or the public what is on its way because they know all pandamoniums will be set free.

Look for the trailers soon to be released in a theatre near YOU and action toys in every happy meal!

Panda's rule the world!

Truthfully, does an gas shortage equal a national emergency?

Bush, the bastart, will there be no end to him!

I say we give a box of donuts to the first Cop that shoots him when he pull out his wallet!

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:54 pm

I was going to coment on this thread yesterday.. It would not accept submit.. Then submit was refused on all threads.. Other people were posting.. Next my phone was taken over by loud squacks and screams.. I went off line for awhile then tryed again.. The phone would not let me on for more that a few.. After aboout two hours the phone settled down.. I could read all post.. I still could not submit to any thread until this morning.. So what the fuck was that?

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:10 pm

Now you know why it was so important to get the National Guard out of the country to get some experience dealing with insurgents...

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:35 pm

There will be no 2008 elections.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:38 pm

DVD Burner wrote:There will be no 2008 elections.

\/
That is not news.. He now has the laws to appoint him king for life..

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:45 pm

This dictatorship thing is also a super hot topic onTribe.
All I know is, have them guns ready.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:49 pm

unjonharley wrote: \/
That is not news.. He now has the laws to appoint him king for life..

I remember a few years ago on eplaya I stated as such and was told "Bush would never do that".

go figure.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Wed May 30, 2007 4:43 pm

I'm pretty certain I never said that-- I'm having a hard time coming up with something Bush wouldn't do to get his way!

(%@&! 2008 is just next year, isn't it?! That is just too darned soon!

B. (worried)

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:20 pm

BAS wrote:I'm pretty certain I never said that-- I'm having a hard time coming up with something Bush wouldn't do to get his way!

(%@&! 2008 is just next year, isn't it?! That is just too darned soon!

B. (worried)

nope, I was not saying or insinuating that you said that. In fact, I'm sure you didn't.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:37 pm

DVD Burner wrote:
BAS wrote:I'm pretty certain I never said that-- I'm having a hard time coming up with something Bush wouldn't do to get his way!

(%@&! 2008 is just next year, isn't it?! That is just too darned soon!

B. (worried)

nope, I was not saying or insinuating that you said that. In fact, I'm sure you didn't.

I didn't think so, but I wanted to go on record, just in case, er, just in case.

B. (who, having realized how close 2008 is, needs to get moving on survival plans!)

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:43 pm

BAS wrote:
B. (who, having realized how close 2008 is, needs to get moving on survival plans!)

BM is an excellent traing ground.

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:36 pm

All I know is, have them guns ready.

I'm glad someone sees it that way. I hope things like this make those anti gun folk see some of the errors of their ways. They trust the President which is mostly determined by our Electorial college, courts, and our media, to control our military, but not the American people? I really don't think anything will come of this, but one day something will happen. It aways does. I just hope it's not in my lifetime.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Wed May 30, 2007 7:53 pm

I hope things like this make those anti gun folk see some of the errors of their ways.

Though from what I have heard, bombs are better, and harder to stop.

B.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed May 30, 2007 8:10 pm

MikeVDS wrote: I'm glad someone sees it that way. I hope things like this make those anti gun folk see some of the errors of their ways. They trust the President which is mostly determined by our Electorial college, courts, and our media, to control our military, but not the American people? I really don't think anything will come of this, but one day something will happen. It aways does. I just hope it's not in my lifetime.

I hope it is durring mine, and I'm probally older than you.
I'm ready to kick some ass and I'm not a gun guy, tho I do know how to handle them.

BAS wrote:
Though from what I have heard, bombs are better, and harder to stop.

B.

and then some. Hey hey hey!

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Wed May 30, 2007 8:11 pm

This is true, but those are already illegal.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Wed May 30, 2007 8:28 pm

MikeVDS wrote:This is true, but those are already illegal.

Although nearly impossible to enforce. (People need fuel oil, farmers need fertilizer. And so on.)

Anyway, if a civil war does come in the near future, I imagine that the gun laws won't change much between now and then-- at least not on any practical level. If Bush declares martial law, then pretty much everything will be illegal, save for what is specifically allowed, if I understand martial law correctly. The guns (and ammunition) will still be out there, just that they will be illegal. Then again, so will trying to overthrow the regime-- so their status is a moot point.

Of course, I know pretty much nothing about either guns or bombs, so I guess I am just arguing hypotheticals here. (Maybe I should spend the war the way my great-grandfather spent the Civil War-- having an affair with his commanding officer's wife!

) --I suppose that is way I would prefer bombs to guns-- they can be set up and detonated later, so aiming is not as big a factor. Oh, and they can be used to take out infrastructure, rather than killing people. (I don't like the idea of killing-- too hard to undo if later I decide I should not have done it.)

Oh, and one reason for having the troops overseas-- it is harder for them to do anything quickly if Bush (or whoever is running him) decides to take over. More time for the New Order to set up while the troops are still figuring out anything happened.

Well, I am more than half asleep here, and I need to get to bed so I will be able to get up and work on revising my resume for some interviews coming up, and get myself ready for Small Claims court next week.

Good night!

B.

Bin Noddin · Post by **Bin Noddin** » Wed May 30, 2007 8:47 pm

Back to basics for a sec - Is this the first such order? I suspect that all presidents for the last 50 years must have had some kind of plan. If not the first, how does this one differ from the others? Is there a law librarian in the house?

Bin Noddin · Post by **Bin Noddin** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:01 pm

To answer my own question - no, not the first. Way down there near the end they revoke one issued during the Clinton administration:

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

and going back further - from http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

Presidential Decision Directive 67 (PDD 67), issued 21 October 1998, relates to enduring constitutional government, continuity of operations (COOP) planning, and continuity of government (COG) operations. The purpose of Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG), Continuity of Government (COG), and Continuity of Operations (COOP) is to ensure survival of a constitutional form of government and the continuity of essential Federal functions. Presidential Decision Directive 67 replaced the Bush Administration's NSD 69 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 02 June 1992, which in turn succeeded NSD 37 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 18 April 1990 and NSDD 55 "Enduring National Leadership" of 14 September 1982.

and some history from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity ... tions_Plan
But still, a Ruger M77 around the house would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling umm hmmm

Das Bus · Post by **Das Bus** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:47 pm

So what else is new? Your land, home, money, children, freedom and life can be taken away from you at anytime. We live in a fantasy world where we think we have rights; but in actuality, we don't. All you can do is try to stay under the radar. SSDD

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:49 pm

The one good thing that I see is that a large part of the military and police are well aware of his tendency to grab power. They will only follow to a point. The same thing happened in Indonesia. When the pres [Wahid] called out the army, they all came. Then they just stood there and watched. He was out in 2 weeks.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:07 pm

BAS wrote
Oh, and one reason for having the troops overseas-- it is harder for them to do anything quickly if Bush (or whoever is running him) decides to take over. More time for the New Order to set up while the troops are still figuring out anything happened."

The national guard killed non-violent Americans at Kent State. After that, they decided that they weren't going to be a patsy for political drama. Catastrophes,,,yes. Political shit,,,no.
Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of American troops on American soil, but it's been reduced to almost nothing. The army has decided that they don't want to be a patsy either. They got a lot of bad press because of Waco.
ATF is more than happy to be the "heavy" now. The secret service pulls a lot of shit also. The new factor is the United Nations troops on American soil. They've made it clear that they don't have any compunction against shooting Americans. They could be deployed.
There are 300 million guns in the US. Just imagine how incensed people would be if confronted by foreign troops.
Bush is such a lame duck that NO ONE will follow him. The people who pulled 9/11 aren't going to risk another false flag incident
Congress won't back him.
The judicial won't back him.
It's doubtful that the military will take overt action. They've been played the patsy twice. Iraq and Viet Nam are loaded with oil. We could just BUY the shit instead of killing millions.
Congress does have the power to recind his declarations. He's not going to go quietly but he may not be able to do much besides causing a constitutional crisis before he goes.
The military commanders are smart. They're doing all they can to avert war with Iran.
Obviously, I don't have any faith in the shrub. I do however have faith in the members of GOV who got to where they are using brains and hard work to try to maintain an orderly society.
The decider has some doubts too. He's reportedly bought 92,467 acres in Paraguay. http://www.teambio.org/2006/10/bush-fam ... nd-a-mule/
Paraguay has explicitly said that they won't extradite for war crimes. Personally, I think that he should go into retirement in some place like ,,,,Sudan or Lebanon.
Dan

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:22 pm

Interesting. I haven't a clue if it's true,,,, we can dream,, can't we.

Kremlin sources are reporting today that the International Committee of the Red Cross, based in Switzerland, has opened a War Crimes Portfolio charging the United States President, Vice President, Defense Secretary, United States Military Commanders and the majority of United States Senators and Congressmen with â€˜Crimes Against Humanityâ€™ over what the United Nations has declared as an â€˜illegalâ€™ war in the Middle Eastern Country of Iraq, and where the innocent civilian death toll is nearing 30,000.

This is reported to be only the second time in the International Committee of the Red Crossâ€™s history where a War Crimes Portfolio has been opened against the Civilian and Military Leadership of a sovereign country, with the first being opened in 1943 against the Nazi German Empire and its Chancellor, Adolph Hitler, and various other civilian and military leaders of that country.

The specific â€˜Crimes Against Humanityâ€™ that these Americans are being charged with are violations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, specifically Articles 3 and 4 which state:

Post by **mdmf007** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:53 pm

[quote="can't sit still"]The one good thing that I see is that a large part of the military and police are well aware of his tendency to grab power. They will only follow to a point. quote]

Problem with that is in the fact that it is a crime for a soldier to NOT follow out and execute orders given lawfully. A soldier does not have the right to decide which orders to follow or not to follow - unless it is an illegal order - like fire into an unarmed crowd, execute prisoners without due process, etc.

Since we have a decleration of war in hand, a soldier has the obligation to engage in iraq, and anywhere else the Commander in Chief decides this war is to carry us. The scary thing is about the "war on terrorism" is it is not targeted towards a geographic area. What if the CIC decides Iran needs to be stopped in the name of terrorism prevention - that soldier must engage Iran.

Thats the simple truth about it, for a soldier to not carry them out is criminal.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:23 am

I agree with everything that you say. I wasn't implying that the soldiers would disobey. After all, they joined the military to get their green card. Sheeple do what they're told
I'm speaking about the officers. There are plenty of brilliant officers and they don't want to be anybody's patsy.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22551

Post by **mdmf007** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:02 pm

of course " I was only following orders" isnt a good defense in court. Fortunately history is written by the victor, and shouldnt be an issue

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:58 pm

"history is written by the victor"
This is true,,,up to a point. If everyone became telepathic, it wouldn't hold true. The Internet has changed the nature of communication. Like the details of the Ashcroft hospital visit. 50 years ago, not 20 people would have known about something like that. Now, if 3 people find out today,,,,10,000 know tomorrow.
"Following orders" isn't quite the same as it was decades ago. The Nurnberg trials, the Geneva convention, Me Lai etc have all passed the responsibility up the chain of command. All soldiers are aware of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
As we've seen in recent investigations,,, the responsibility just creeps and creeps up the chain of command.
Mass-media is more than willing to maintain the status-quo,,,bury the truth. With the help of the internet and people like Waxman and Fitzgerald, the victors don't get to write the history books.
There are a lot of good people. Runaway greed and power-mongering is anathema to them. Many will risk all to see the truth come out.

Post by **mdmf007** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:16 pm

I agree - I was going to use the Nuremburg trials as an example of "Just Following Orders" as a defense, but did not want the possility of that being mistaken for me comparing our US soldiers to the Nazi's. I am not comparing our soldiers to the Nazi's

It all comes down to perception. In our view we are liberators doing right. In much of Iraq the attitude I runa cross is that we are an occupying force just one step better than Saddam's regime. So perception is through the eyes of the viewer.

Just about every soldier deployed knows the politics involved better than most people in the states and is still there doing their job. In the beginning I could see a "Fuck yeah - we kick ass, Saddam is going down, We are hear for the good" attitude.

Now it is more like, "Yeah we are here, I wish these asshats could fend forthemselves, instead of fuck it up more"

No mater the reason we went to Iraq, I believe the Hussein regime had to end. It would have been nice for our CIC to be more forthright, America would have still backed him as much as we did under the guise of snding terrorism.