King George To Assume Full Power?

[InLove]

Edit time has expired. Correction--the link I provided is not on the original page we both cited. I did a search. Anyway, it is all related material within the same website.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders...
Many citizens and lawmakers expressed concern over the content and scope of several of President Bill Clinton's executive orders and land proclamations. Congress responded with hearings and the consideration of several bills designed to curb the President's authority to issue such directives. In an exceedingly rare act, the courts reacted by striking down one of President Clinton's executive orders, and litigation to contest the validity of other directives is ongoing....

In the end, the constitutional separation of powers supports both sides of the argument over a President's proper authority. It reinforces a President's right or duty to issue a decree, order, or proclamation to carry out a particular power that truly is committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress. On the other hand, the constitutional separation of powers cuts the other way if the President attempts to issue an order regarding a matter that is expressly committed to another branch of government; it might even render the presidential action void. Finally, separation of powers principles may be unclear or ambiguous when the power is shared by two branches of government.

OHHHHH!!! Flashbacks! Must go build bunker in the woods...must learn wild edibles and trapping...must learn herbal medicine and combat trauma medicine...must stockpile arms and ammunition...must resist the forces of evil (embodied in President Clinton)... must... blow... up... a... federal... building... or... abortion... clinic... somewhere... now.

Somebody, anybody, please! Save me from myself!

[InLove]

Hi juan

The intent of my posts is not to promote panic. And I certainly never meant to imply that I thought Bill Clinton was the embodiment of evil, (although I do so wish that he would have kept his pants zipped up. It would have been so much better for this country if he had.) I realize the article from FAS appears to be biased against him, but remember this is a publication from an organization that attempts to present a scientific viewpoint. And the fact is that even though I may have agreed politically and philosophically with much of President Clinton's agenda, he did manage to get around the Constitution a few times, utilizing executive directives. And he did so even with the opposing party in the Congressional majority at the time. Yes, the mostly conservative Court shut him down in some of what he tried to do, but the rest slipped right on by. What’s to keep Bush from doing the same thing? Hopefully, Dondi is right, and if he does try to do this, Congress will catch it and stop it. I am not so sure that the Judicial branch of our government, considering the recent shuffling that has taken place, will actually oppose anything he wants to set in motion.

The wording that has been added in this most recent directive looks innocent enough to many, and hopefully it is. And hopefully it is there to do exactly what it says—to ensure that all branches of the government will be kept intact under the spirit of the Constitution. But as far as I have been able to find, it is stated in a way that has not appeared before in past directives. And that bothers me for some reason. Maybe it is really that I just don’t trust this particular administration for reasons that from my point of view should be obvious by now. But then, that is my point of view. I’m not suggesting that anyone is obligated to share in it, but neither do I think it warrants total dismissal. I wouldn’t have said anything if I thought it was a ridiculous thing to consider.

Maybe I can draw a kind of parallel that will help: I recently saw an ad for an auto insurance company that is offering its customers the “unique” opportunity to extend their policies to cover anyone they loan their car to. But there is nothing unique or new about this. Most insurance companies do this anyway. So why is this company suddenly making a big deal about it? Oh let me see…could it be that possibly they have found a way to make an extra profit by adding this specific clause in a higher-priced policy? It’s spin.

I keep my eyes open for the spin. I try to put together what I see and I try to find the money or power trail. I look for patterns. Do I spend a lot of time looking for conspiracies? No, I don’t. But I admit that much of what I have been seeing lately keeps my antennae up more than usual. I am not by nature a person who necessarily enjoys debating. So I am not invested in being “right”. In fact, I surely hope I am wrong and Dondi and you are right. And I realize you were probably joking, but just to be clear to anyone reading, I would never condone blowing up buildings full of people to make any kind of political or moral statement.

InPeace,
InLove

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by InLove

(although I do so wish that he would have kept his pants zipped up. It would have been so much better for this country if he had.)

InPeace,
InLove

The problem there is not what Clinton did, (that was solely a matter for him and his wife), but that the republican party was so hell-bent on destroying the most decent president since Carter, who'm they also destroyed. Something I continually fail to comprehend is how America continues its love affair with the in your face corrupt Republican high command. I mean that most sincerely, it truly baffles me.

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, InLove!

Yes, I wrote what I did tongue-in-cheek, although it would only take a reference to my post "Master of my Fate, Captain of my Soul" to show that I have already been here and done this. There is nothing new to the concept of Presidential directives, they have been in use since Emperor Roosevelt and Harry Truman circa WWII. Ike used them, and as far as I know so has every president since.

Vilification of the office of the President, be he Republican or Democrat, Conservative, Moderate or Liberal, has been a game played amongst politicrats in the journalism industry since Truman's administration. (Roosevelt was a media darling). No matter how good a president does, there is always dirt to be found and exploited. That is the human aspect of politics.

As for Clinton's little tryst...had he been a Republican, the story would have unfolded in much the same way. Just ask any Freemason...that is, if they are willing to conceed the truth.

The whole game is played by pitting the masses against each other over trivia, while the powers behind the scenes broker the real moves out of public view. Tabloid scandals are smokescreens. Idolizing of personalities is a confusion brought over from Hollywood. John Q. Public doesn't vote issues, they vote on appearance (who's got the best hair?) and bumper sticker slogans. This is true of all parties. And third parties in America haven't got a snowball's chance in hell to begin with. (Not without a major social upheaval like a civil war)

We in America operate under the illusion of having a say in presidential politics. This is an illusion, and it is Constitutionally valid illusion. The president is, and always has been elected by the electoral college, *in spite of the general vote.* The same was true of Senetors as well until Decmber of 1913...when a lot of things in American policy were changed in the administration of Woodrow Wilson leading into the first World War. Check into a little book called "Phillip Dru, Administrator" by Col. Edward Mandel House, keeping in mind that House became Wilson's chief advisor during that administration. 1913 was also the year that the Federal Reserve Bank, *a private, for profit institution*, was established. In less than 100 years we have gone from gold and silver as currency, to specie, to script, and we are quickly evolving into electronic currency. Now, keep in mind that gold and silver have intrinsic value, an ounce of gold is worth an ounce of gold. Specie and script have an intrinsic value of the paper they are written on. Electronic "money" has the intrinsic value of air. See where I am going with this?

I know the mantra of the survivalist Posse Comitatus. I understand the mind of Timothy McVeigh, with greater depth and detail than I am comfortable admitting. So yes, my post was tongue-in-cheek, while at the same time it was not without merit.

In the end all of this hype about all this stuff is like shouting "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" Maybe it is falling, but worrying about it will not solve the problem. Ever see the movie, "Enemy of the State?" I mean, watch it, rewatch it, pick it apart and analyze it? THAT is what we are up against, and that technology was ten years out of date *when the movie was made.* Imagine where we are now! with technology basically 20 years ahead of where it was then!

Yet, a punk kid with a chip on his shoulder named John Eric Rudolph can hide in the woods from all of this for years, evading law enforcement. How long has Osama Bin Laden hid in the hills of Afghanistan? There are limits to technology...but one must surrender civilization to thwart technology.

Personally, I see great similarity between this and the prophecy of Revelations, where G-d provides a shelter of wilderness protection for those who resist the worldly governmental force(s). But that's just me...

It also presupposes one is willing to surrender the things of the world, and unlike Lot's wife, not look back.

The trick is to manage this belief, with the practical reality of having to make a comfortable living, ever "vigilant" for the unfolding of prophecy, applying oneself to necessary "old school" learning (such as gardening and medicinal herbs), and being willing to separate oneself from the things of the world when the time comes. And most important, is to do all of this discretely.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, InLove!

Originally Posted by InLove

I would never condone blowing up buildings full of people to make any kind of political or moral statement.

I know you wouldn't. But Liberal Democrat Janet Reno did at both Waco and Ruby Ridge, and for whom Liberal Democrat William Jefferson Clinton is ultimately responsible as commander-in-chief. For all I know, he issued the order and lit the fuse personally. Seems King George isn't the only one with a monkey on his back and blood on his hands, at least he didn't turn on his own people.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, InLove!

I know you wouldn't. But Liberal Democrat Janet Reno did at both Waco and Ruby Ridge, and for whom Liberal Democrat William Jefferson Clinton is ultimately responsible as commander-in-chief. For all I know, he issued the order and lit the fuse personally. Seems King George isn't the only one with a monkey on his back and blood on his hands, at least he didn't turn on his own people.

After looking closely at the 9/11 conspiracy stuff then i would not be that sure about that.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

After looking closely at the 9/11 conspiracy stuff then i would not be that sure about that.

Of course, some say Emperor Roosevelt stacked the deck at Pearl Harbor too. He'd been trying to get us into the war for two years previously. Hitler didn't want us to enter, and there had been a lot of sympathy for Germany in the states prior to Pearl...

For every bit of mud to be slung at a conservative or Republican, there is just as much to stick to a liberal or Democrat. Two sides of the same coin...and in my humble opinion that is precisely what is wrong with American politics.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by dauer

I'm glad you admit it was wrong, but you also seem to justify his actions by saying it's hard not to be concerned. Everyone has their motivations for the way they act and sometimes we act in destructive ways under well-meaning pretenses of at least claim to. History repeatedly calls violence and oppression and suppression an act of love. Try and tell the people being hurt that.

From a security standpoint, it is hard to to be concerned. The paranoia in the 50's was evident with the construction of bomb shelters and classroom instruction for procedures for civil defense posturing in the event of a nuclear attack, which basically amounted to:

ON HEARING THE FIRST WARNING:

1. PROCEED TO THE NEAREST BUILDING.

2. STAY AWAY FROM LOOSE OBJECTS, AND DROP ALL GLASSES, BOOKS ETC. IN
YOUR HANDS.

3. REMOVE SHARP OBJECTS, SUCH AS PENCILS AND KEYS, FROM YOUR POCKETS.

4. LOOSEN YOUR NECKTIE, UNBUTTON YOUR COAT AND REMOVE RESTRICTIVE ARTICLES OF CLOTHING.

5. REMOVE EYEGLASSES, EARRINGS, WATCHES AND OTHER JEWELRY.

6. UPON SEEING THE BRILLIANT FLASH OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, BEND OVER AND PLACE YOUR HEAD FIRMLY BETWEEN YOUR LEGS.

7. THEN KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE.

But the fears were not unfounded, as the Cuban Missle Crisis proved, which led us as close to the brink than we ever have.

I'm not saying that in some cases this was mishandled. The Japanese-Americans during WWII at the very least ought to have been screened and if nothing substantial was found, then they should have been let go, rather than being interned. But of course, the means for swift screening would have been difficult (they didn't have the luxury of computer databases, ya know) and not to mention a huge expendature of manpower and resources in implementing it. The basic fear here was that the U.S. had no idea if any of the Japanese-Americans still had loyalties to Japan. Certainly, a good percentage of them still had family and friends in Japan. How would the U.S. know where their loyalty lay? Sure, they could give them the benefit of the doubt. But why take that chance? Seems rather than than go through all that trouble, the U.S. deemed it necessary to just keep them at bay during the critical times of the war. It may have not been right, but at least they conducted it somewhat humanely.

Originally Posted by dauer

So acting out on one's own paranoia is justifiable regardless of the consequences as long as it's done out of the belief that it's for the security of the nation? Would you like to justify the Holocaust next?

I cannot believe that you would equate the Japanese-American internment with the Holocaust. This is two different animals. One was based on fear (as a matter of security) and the other was based on hate. The Nazis vied for a superior race that apparently didn't include the Jews, so we see social Darwinism in action.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

classroom instruction for procedures for civil defense posturing in the event of a nuclear attack, which basically amounted to:

ON HEARING THE FIRST WARNING:

During the Cuban missle crisis I was in elementary school and in Pheonix, Arizona, presumed to be within striking distance we had three drills in school, fire drills, earthquake drills and nuclear attack drills.

Fire drills, leave the building by classrooms and stand in groups in the middle of the playground with your teacher.

Earthquake drills, everyone get under your desk and pull your chair close to you.

Nuclear attack, proceed to the interior hall just outside your classroom curl up in fetal position head against wall feet toward the hall and interlace your fingers on the back of your neck.

We practiced them all, seemed like at least once each month. Yet the only thing we ever encountered was earthquakes, and each and every time we sat up listened to the windows and building rattle, watched the pendent lamps swing, things fall of the shelves and looked around to watch the ripples in the aquarium or anything else that had water in it...

Oh and your kiss your ass goodby is still our best homeland security method for any terrorist attack. Have you got your 3 days of water per person squirreled away and the rest of the items.

[dauer]

Dondi,

You still sound like you're justifying the actions that feed off of mass-hysteria and fear-mongering, but then maybe you are.

And is there really such a great difference between fear and hate? The Jews weren't the only ones sent to the camps. Don't forget war so-called enemies of the state. And if we look at the Nazi rhetoric it wasn't just based around hate. It was also about fear. I don't think it's possible to have hate without fearing something. Claims to superiority come out of a fear of inferiority. Just look at the imasculating events that got Germany there in the first place. The main difference between the nazi camps and the american ones was really degree. At their root they were both about a distrust and uneasiness surrounding the other. They fostered us-and-them thinking about the members of one's own country. That type of paranoia is like a cancer that grows and attacks its own body.

If Bush ordered interment camps today for all Americans of Arab descent would you support it? If he rounded up every Arab individual regardless of their background would you support it?

As I think you or maybe someone else pointed out, we are a nation of immigrants in the United States. We all come from somewhere. As I like to think of it, becoming American is a bit like becoming Jewish. It's a significant change in one's identity. In Judaism it's taboo to refer to someone as a convert instead of as a Jew and I would suggest there is some wisdom in this. If someone goes through the process of becoming an American we can't hold them suspect simply because of their place of origin. It's immoral.


Dauer

[Jack Halyard]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

As for Clinton's little tryst...had he been a Republican, the story would have unfolded in much the same way. Just ask any Freemason...that is, if they are willing to conceed the truth.

Juan, what exactly are you referring to?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jack Halyard!

Long time no hear from, I hope all is well your way.

Originally Posted by Jack Halyard

Juan, what exactly are you referring to?

Monica.

The whole debacle was a charade, a smokescreen to keep the general public's eyes off of whatever was going on behind the scenes at the time. I didn't keep track, but I vaguely recall some rather shady doings regarding business legislation and foreign policy that were kept off the front page by the tabloid BS. Bush may be no saint, but Clinton sure as hell wasn't either. (Frankly, since this is the politics board, it is Hillary that scares the living daylights out of me.)

As for Freemasons...name two US presidents that were *not* Freemasons. I can think of only one, Jimmy Carter, and he was affiliated with another "world power" group, I want to say "the Bilderberg" group, or perhaps it was "the Trilateralist Commission." It's been awhile, and I don't let this stuff occupy me like I once did.

[Jack Halyard]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Jack Halyard!

Long time no hear from, I hope all is well your way.


Monica.

Kindest regards to you as well.

[InLove]

Hi juan.

I think J.H. probably logged out and left work yesterday before he saw that you had edited your post. I don't know when he'll log back in, and so he may not remember the conversation too well. Just thought I'd let you know.

I think I get what some of you are trying to say. I might be wrong, but I think you might be trying to say that there are conspiracy theories just about anywhere one looks today. Like I said earlier, I generally do not entertain them too much. I don't totally dismiss some of them, but I usually do not dwell on them.

When I made my first comments here on this thread, I said a couple of things that maybe gave folks the wrong impression. I guess it is obvious that I am frustrated with the current situation, and so maybe when I read the latest thing in a string of things, it just triggered a response from me. I have been relatively quiet about my opinions of how things are being handled in this country, simply because this is an international website. So, just call me "Natalie" if you want, and I'm sure I will recover. I do hope things get better and not worse, but I don't think I will hold my breath. But I do think I will try to hold my tongue more often, at least here in CR. No promises, but I have other concerns right now to deal with, and I don't know how much energy I have left for political activism of the very vocal kind anymore. But there was a time....

InPeace,
InLove