PDA

View Full Version : Will Obama Keep Power 'by Any Means Necessary'?



Mazeppa
8/24/2012, 10:28 PM
August 21, 2012
Will Obama Keep Power 'by Any Means Necessary'?
By Stella Paul

Let's go there: if Obama thinks he's losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6? And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013? Or will he cling to power "by any means necessary," as a highly placed insider alleges?

Now, I'm truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they're not crazy, and I've got a disquieting amount of evidence. The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years -- the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By Democrat standards, I've got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.

Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise. So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary.

In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1. Giuliani's unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg. So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits? He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.

My point? Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.

Now, let's look at just some of the disturbing evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting something big:

Super-High-Level Trial Balloons

USA Today reported that on September 27, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club audience, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover[.] ... You want people who don't worry about the next election." When outrage greeted her suggestion, she retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking. What a kidder!

Meanwhile, that same month, Peter Orszag, Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget, published an article in The New Republic titled "Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy." In it, he posited that the country was too polarized; hence, "radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

Please note that these suggestions to suspend elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from basement-dwelling bloggers. They came from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats are holding their national convention and from one of Obama's most prominent Cabinet members. Their close timing suggests that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat power elite.

"Whom Does the Government Intend to Shoot?"

That's the question recently posed by retired Major General Jerry Curry in the Daily Caller, in light of horrifying reports that the Social Security Administration is buying 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for distribution to 41 locations in the U.S.

According to Major General Curry, Social Security's ammo spree follows the purchase by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of 46,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition. Will they be shooting fish in a barrel?

Most terrifying of all, Major General Curry reports that the Department of Homeland Security ordered 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition in March, then subsequently ordered an additional 750 million rounds, including bullets capable of penetrating walls.

"This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen," writes Major General Curry, who wonders what plan might require "so many dead Americans."

I strongly suggest that you read Major General Curry's article for yourself, so you can appreciate the full horror of what he describes. After pointing out that Congress has done nothing to investigate these weapon purchases, Major General Curry, a 40-year veteran, concludes with these chilling words:

This is a deadly serious business. I hope I'm wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn't going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.

Executive Orders

Obama may not be fond of governing, but he certainly does enjoy issuing executive orders -- 135 so far. As American Thinker's Warren Beatty points out, these little-reported edicts reveal an all-too-predictable pattern: concentrating all national power and resources in Obama's hands, in case of "emergency."

So far, Obama has granted himself the right to control all transportation, including highways, airports, seaports, and railroads, and all modes of communication, storage facilities, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.



Should you resist any of these emergency measures, rest assured that the U.S. government is now well supplied with bullets.

Openly War-Gaming against American Citizens

A recent issue of the well-respected Small Wars Journal featured an article titled "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A 'Vision' of the Future." Written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert, the article helpfully game-played, in full operational detail, how the Army would destroy a local Tea Party insurrection.

The authors claim that should Tea Party rebels take over a City Hall, "Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas"; therefore, "the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment."

The brazenness of this scheme for the U.S. military to kill Americans created a small, temporary stir. The Washington Times editorialized, "This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying." The Washington Times also noted:

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson's case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

Active Partnership with America's Foreign Enemies

Many spectacles have enlivened presidential elections over the years, but 2012 marks the first time that high-level military personnel have felt compelled to publicly tell the president to stop leaking national security secrets.

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives created a 22-minute video, "Dishonorable Disclosures," to shame Obama into shutting up about priceless intelligence related to bin Laden's death, British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda, and the Israeli-American Stuxnet virus attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Normally, presidents don't want to endanger American citizens and military personnel by leaking top-secret information -- but aiding and abetting the enemy is apparently all in a day's work for Obama.

And so, if he wants to stir up trouble before the election, either at home or abroad, he'll have plenty of enemy partners to help. First, he's got the Russians, to whose president he was caught whispering on a hot mic about missile defense, "This is my last election[.] ... After my election, I have more flexibility."

Second, Obama is this close to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are world-class experts on unleashing political violence. Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, and he's placed its operatives in the highest levels of the American government. Surely, such clever characters as Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff, and Mohamed Elibiary, a Homeland Security Advisory committee member, can be trusted to think up some exciting turmoil to apply where needed.

And finally, close to home, Obama can rely on the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, whom he supplied with thousands of guns. Gratefully, they used their American taxpayer-funded AK-47s to wipe out rival drug gangs and to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Attorney General Eric Holder is presently in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents on Operation Fast and Furious, and Obama ("President Transparency") has claimed executive privilege to withhold them.

Sending hordes of expensively armed drug gang members across our border should be a snap, now that Obama has crippled our Border Patrol. Just think of all the headline-grabbing distractions these energetic young men can unleash!

Active Partnership with Domestic Criminal Groups

When Louis Farrakhan met Ahmadinejad: now there's a romance made in the bowels of hell. Toss in the head of the New Black Panthers and fifty radical imams, and you've got the "Beast Axis" that was forged in a Manhattan hotel on September 27, 2010, according to The Blaze.

New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz boasted on Black Panther Radio that he "stands on solid ideological ground" with "His Excellency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," who understands "the dynamics and the politics of world revolution."

Apparently, Obama approves of these antics, because his attorney general, Eric Holder, dropped charges against the New Black Panthers, even though they were caught on tape allegedly intimidating Philadelphia voters in the 2008 elections. Naturally, Holder's Department of Justice then lied about its actions, covering up its political motivations.

Holder specifically protected King Samir Shabazz, who now serves as national field marshal for the New Black Panthers. Shabazz spearheads the Panthers' ambitious new plan to "create inner city militaries that would go into nurseries and kill white babies and murder white people in the street."

Let's hope this "inner city military" is not what candidate Obama mysteriously referred to in 2008 when he pledged, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Imagine, for one monstrous moment, the destructive potential of this burgeoning alliance between the Obama-protected New Black Panthers, Obama's old Chicago associate Louis Farrakhan, and the genocidally obsessed Ahmadinejad. If your blood didn't run cold, you weren't imagining hard enough.

A Tsunami of Voter Fraud

On June 15, 2012, Obama bypassed Congress and issued de facto amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Suddenly, whole new vistas of voter fraud opened up to the Democrats. Admittedly, they've got to ramp up quickly for November, but this gang should prove up to the challenge.

Helping matters along, Holder is busy suing states that require photo ID to vote and attempting to disenfranchise the military. Together, these well-coordinated efforts should provide Obama with the means to pull off staggering amounts of voter fraud.

"By Any Means Necessary"

If all else fails, Obama and his investors may be prepared to keep power "By Any Means Necessary." This information comes from an uncannily predictive website called The Ulsterman Report. Those who have followed its fascinating interviews over the last couple of years with two anonymous sources, Wall Street Insider and White House Insider, have seen its scoops confirmed again and again.

Well over a year ahead of any other media, The Ulsterman Report was informing readers that Valerie Jarrett ran the White House and that Obama was strangely disengaged from the actual tasks of governing. It predicted the emergence of obscure figures -- Kamala D. Harris, who's now attorney general of California, and her brother-in-law, Tony West, the newly named acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice, who's being groomed as Holder's successor.

Most crucially, shortly after the bin Laden operation, the Ulsterman Report revealed that Valerie Jarrett had canceled three previous bin Laden raids. That information now has been confirmed by Richard Miniter in his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.

Recently, a source known as Military Insider (MI) met with Ulsterman (UM) at the urging of Wall Street Insider (WSI) to issue a warning. A section of their conversation follows below:

MI: Approximately two years ago...not quite two years ago...I received information pertaining to an election contingency plan. For 2012. After the 2010 elections there were particular operatives...specific to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leadership...indicating an overwhelming need to secure a second term for President Obama. That document's title was...(pauses)

WSI: He can be trusted - I give you my word. Please proceed.

MI: That document's title was "By Any Means Necessary". It was unofficial - but we know it came directly from channels specific to the administration. We confirmed that.

UM: What channels? Who are you talking about?

MI: We believe it to have been authored by Mr. Sunstein. Reviewed and approved by Valerie Jarrett. Preparations for implementation are being done in part by Mr. Leo Gerard coordinating with...with high ranking officials within the Department of Justice, Homeland Security...and...the U.S. military.

We could dismiss the anonymous Military Insider's warning as overheated, unsourced hysteria. Or we could examine it as one more piece of evidence to place alongside all the evidence I've described above.

The greatest asset of Obama and his investors has been their warp-speed audacity. We're too stunned to believe what's happening in front of our eyes, and too embarrassed to mention it. Who wants to speak up and be ridiculed as an unhinged paranoid, marching with the tinfoil hat brigade?

But our best bet -- perhaps our only bet -- is to frankly confront this ugly reality. As Iran prepares to go nuclear and the global economy teeters, any number of "national emergencies" can suddenly erupt, demanding unprecedented measures by Obama to "save" us. We must be prepared with skepticism, outrage, and defiance of any actions to deprive us of our Constitutional rights.

America remains the last best hope on earth. And We the People must keep our power, by any means necessary.

correction: erroneous link to executive orders removed

correction: refernce to work briagades and relocation centers removed

correction: number of executive orders issued by Obama changed to 135

BigTip
8/24/2012, 11:05 PM
The problem is most people think, "these things can't happen. That's crazy talk."

Of course crazier things have happened in world history. I don't understand why people can't look at history for some lessons of what is possible.

How about the Texas judge that mentioned that a civil war might be possible if Obama is reelected? Crazy talk? I don't think so. Smaller things have sparked civil unrest.

I know they say it about most presidential elections, but this one is the most important one ever. Are we going to go down the road to socialism, with authorities limiting protests and free speech under the guise of protecting the population from terrorism? Or are we going to go back to what made America great?

I know I don't want to live in a socialist state.

I am not, and never have been, a right wing conspiracy nut type. This whole situation is making me much more vocal though. It's important to talk about the possibilities.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

Midtowner
8/24/2012, 11:21 PM
So the best thing to do would be to vote for Obama and avoid the coup.

SanJoaquinSooner
8/24/2012, 11:29 PM
And finally, close to home, Obama can rely on the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, whom he supplied with thousands of guns.

Obama gave guns to the drug cartel?

Or did U.S. gun dealers sell guns to drug cartel go-betweens?

Should Obama require more thorough scrutiny of gun sales?

SouthCarolinaSooner
8/25/2012, 05:33 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg

olevetonahill
8/25/2012, 06:02 AM
Even I got to say that **** is
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510-KuuHviL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

diverdog
8/25/2012, 06:27 AM
There have been a total of 13,200 executive orders issued by all Presidents. No one was talking about any President keeping power using any means necessary until President Obama did it. The hysteria on the right knows no bounds.

olevetonahill
8/25/2012, 06:34 AM
There have been a total of 13,200 executive orders issued by all Presidents. No one was talking about any President keeping power using any means necessary until President Obama did it. The hysteria on the right knows no bounds.


See thats where YOU lose me Bro
Just as I shouldnt Lump all Lefties in the same basket so should You not be lumpin all the righties in the Looney Bin either

You say that like EVERY one on the right is a Loon when in fact we are not

Its a tendency of you lefties to try to lump all into one group
Got a whack job Right y? Look at that all you rightys are whack
Got a Nut with a gun? look at that every one that owns Gun are a Nut
ETC.

ictsooner7
8/25/2012, 06:42 AM
See thats where YOU lose me Bro
Just as I shouldnt Lump all Lefties in the same basket so should You not be lumpin all the righties in the Looney Bin either

You say that like EVERY one on the right is a Loon when in fact we are not

Its a tendency of you lefties to try to lump all into one group
Got a whack job Right y? Look at that all you rightys are whack
Got a Nut with a gun? look at that every one that owns Gun are a Nut
ETC.

You and yours lumps all liberals together. You are laughable, you posted this paranoid crap. Romney showed his birther colors yesterday.

olevetonahill
8/25/2012, 06:55 AM
You and yours lumps all liberals together. You are laughable, you posted this paranoid crap. Romney showed his birther colors yesterday.


Ya know Icky, Its been fun yankin yer chain but you just get stupider by the day

Ima put yer ignorant azz on Iggy for now

Iggy fer Icky hey that rhymes I must be a poet

SicEmBaylor
8/25/2012, 07:13 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/SicEmBaylor/tinhatmoron.jpg

TheHumanAlphabet
8/25/2012, 09:56 AM
Watch the movie "5 Days in May" very good drama, replace the military with O'Bummer and you have the script.

AlboSooner
8/25/2012, 09:58 AM
He will replace the Congress with a politburo. He will also grow a thick mustache.

cleller
8/25/2012, 10:31 AM
I'm about ready to vote for him (Obama) just so it will be crystal clear who to blame in 2013-2014. Sad. If Romney wins, he's already behind the 8 ball.

SouthCarolinaSooner
8/25/2012, 02:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

relevant

SicEmBaylor
8/25/2012, 02:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

relevant

Sounds legit.

Skysooner
8/25/2012, 02:17 PM
See thats where YOU lose me Bro
Just as I shouldnt Lump all Lefties in the same basket so should You not be lumpin all the righties in the Looney Bin either

You say that like EVERY one on the right is a Loon when in fact we are not

Its a tendency of you lefties to try to lump all into one group
Got a whack job Right y? Look at that all you rightys are whack
Got a Nut with a gun? look at that every one that owns Gun are a Nut
ETC.

Way too simplistic. I'm center left, and I tend to have something in common with just about everybody on at least some subject. I may generalize a bit. There is a far right wing component on this board that does virtually nothing but repeating talking points. I tend to ignore them. There are also a few left wingers who do the same, but they don't seem to use articles as much. I don't particularly like hard-core environmentalists as they don't listen to anything but their propaganda, nor do the hard core right wing religious element.

You tend to react to something you think is an attempt by one of us to start a reasoned discussion on something (i.e. see my post just after the Aurora shooting). Instead of having discussions on maybe something common sense to restrict the loonies from getting guns, you took my post as another liberal wanting to take away guns. I own guns. I have hunted in the past. I don't own a handgun presently due to having kids in the house, but I have been looking into getting a home defense pistol.

There are a couple of guys on here (LLL and Okie52) that I didn't necessarily like at first. I thought maybe some of their posts were extreme, but we now have reasoned discussions. Okie52 and I actually agree on much more than I ever thought we would. LLL is maybe a little bit too religious for my taste, but he definitely has a good heart. That's what I look for from posters. I only lump people if they are such severe reactionaries that I see no hope (soonercruiser is one of those).

Olevton-We often disagree, but I often agree with you too. I just don't often post it.

soonercruiser
8/25/2012, 05:13 PM
DUH!
'Cause Obammy was the first one to go that far!

MamaMia
8/26/2012, 11:51 PM
Obamas strong suit is getting elected by any means necessary.

XingTheRubicon
8/27/2012, 07:36 AM
This is an unprecedented organizational war. Ground game has increasingly been essential to "getting out the vote."

If R's were smart they would give away free turkeys on Nov 6 to keep the dregs of society from voting.

cleller
8/27/2012, 07:47 AM
This is an unprecedented organizational war. Ground game has increasingly been essential to "getting out the vote."

If R's were smart they would give away free turkeys on Nov 6 to keep the dregs of society from voting.

The reminds me of the voter registration drives. Why would one side or the other go to such great lengths to register people who don't have the initiative to do it for themselves? It doesn't seem like there is any terrible inability for people to get to government offices in other instances.

Wishboned
8/27/2012, 09:23 AM
I knew this all sounded familiar.







Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election?
by Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis
It is time to think about the "unthinkable."

The Bush Administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election.

The GOP strategy for another electoral theft in 2008 has taken clear shape, though we must assume there is much more we don't know.

But we must also assume that if it appears to Team Bush/Cheney/Rove that the GOP will lose the 2008 election anyway (as it lost in Ohio 2006) we cannot ignore the possibility that they would simply cancel the election. Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention.

The real question is not how or when they might do it. It's how, realistically, we can stop them.

In Florida 2000, Team Bush had a game plan involving a handful of tactics. With Jeb Bush in the governor's mansion, the GOP used a combination of disenfranchisement, intimidation, faulty ballots, electronic voting fraud, a rigged vote count and an aborted recount, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.

A compliant Democrat (Al Gore) allowed the coup to be completed.

In Ohio 2004, the arsenal of dirty tricks exploded. Based in Columbus, we have documented more than a hundred different tactics used to steal the 20 electoral votes that gave Bush a second term. More are still surfacing. As a result of the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit (in which we are plaintiff and attorney) we have now been informed that 56 of the 88 counties in Ohio violated federal law by destroying election records, thus preventing a definitive historical recount.

As in 2000, a compliant Democrat (John Kerry) allowed the coup to proceed.

For 2008 we expect the list of vote theft maneuvers to escalate yet again. We are already witnessing a coordinated nationwide drive to destroy voter registration organizations and to disenfranchise millions of minority, poor and young voters.

This carefully choreographed campaign is complemented by the widespread use of electronic voting machines. As reported by the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and others, these machines can be easily used to flip an election. They were integral to stealing both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Efforts to make their source codes transparent, or to require a usable paper trail on a federal level, have thus far failed. A discriminatory Voter ID requirement may also serve as the gateway to a national identification card.

Overall, the GOP will have at its command even more weapons of election theft in 2008 than it did in Ohio 2004, which jumped exponentially from Florida 2000. The Rovian GOP is nothing if not tightly organized to do this with ruthless efficiency. Expect everything that was used these past two presidential elections to surface again in 2008 in far more states, with far more efficiency, and many new dirty tricks added in.

But in Ohio 2006, the GOP learned a hard lesson. Its candidate for governor was J. Kenneth Blackwell. The Secretary of State was the essential on-the-ground operative in the theft of Ohio 2004.

When he announced for governor, many Ohioans joked that "Ken Blackwell will never lose an election where he counts the votes."

But lose he did....along with the GOP candidates for Secretary of State, Attorney-General and US Senate.

By our calculations, despite massive grassroots scrutiny, the Republicans stole in excess of 6% of the Ohio vote in 2006. But they still lost.

Why? Because they were so massively unpopular that even a 6% bump couldn't save them. Outgoing Governor Bob Taft, who pled guilty to four misdemeanors while in office, left town with a 7% approval rating (that's not a typo). Blackwell entered the last week of the campaign down 30% in some polls.

So while the GOP still had control of the electoral machinery here in 2006, the public tide against them was simply too great to hold back, even through the advanced art and science of modern Rovian election theft.

In traditional electoral terms, that may also be the case in 2008. Should things proceed as they are now, it's hard to imagine any Republican candidate going into the election within striking distance. The potential variations are many, but the graffiti on the wall is clear.

What's also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.

Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn't they?

The groundwork for dismissal of both the legislative and judicial branch has been carefully laid. The litany is well-known, but worth a very partial listing:

The continuation of the drug war, and the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act and other dictatorial laws prompted by the 9/11/2001 terror attacks, have decimated the Bill of Rights, and shredded the traditional American right to due process of law, freedom from official surveillance, arbitrary violence, and far more.

The current Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, has not backed away from his announcement to Congress that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The administration continues to act on the assumption that it can arrest anyone at any time and hold them without notification or trial for as long as it wants.

The establishment of the Homeland Security Agency has given it additional hardware to decimate the basic human rights of our citizenry. Under the guise of dealing with the "immigration problem," large concentration camps are under construction around the US.

The administration has endorsed and is exercising its "right" to employ torture, contrary to the Eighth Amendment and to a wide range of international treaties, which Gonzales has labeled "quaint."

With more than 200 "signing statements" the administration acts on its belief that the "unitary executive" trumps the power of the legislative branch in any instance it chooses. This belief has been further enforced with the administration's use of a wide range of precedent-setting arguments to keep its functionaries from testifying before Congress.

There is much more. In all instances, the 109th Congress---and the public---have rolled over without significant resistance.

Most crucial now are Presidential Directive #51, Executive Orders #13303, #13315, #13350, #13364, #13422, #13438, and more, by which Bush has granted himself an immense arsenal of powers for which the term "dictatorial" is a modest understatement.

The Founders established our government with checks and balances. But executive orders have accumulated important precedent. The Emancipation Proclamation by which Lincoln declared an end to slavery in the South, was issued under the "military necessity" of adding blacks to the Union Army, a step without which the North might not have won the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order #8802 established the Fair Employment Practices Commission. Harry Truman's Executive Order #9981 desegregated the military.

Most to the point, FDR's Executive Order #9066 ordered the forcible internment of 100,000 people of Japanese descent into the now infamous concentration camps of World War II.

There is also precedent for a president overriding the Supreme Court. In the 1830s Chief Justice John Marshall enshrined the right of the Cherokee Nation to sovereignty over its ancestral land in the Appalachian Mountains. But President Andrew Jackson scorned the decision. Some 14,000 native Americans were moved at gunpoint to Oklahoma. More than 3,000 died along the way.

All this will be relevant should Team Bush envision a defeat in the 2008 election and decide to call it off. It's well established that Richard Nixon---mentor to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney---commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 election.

Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a "national emergency" such as a terror attack at a nuclear power plant or something similar?

Nothing in the behavior of this Congress indicates that it is capable of significant resistance. Impeachment seems beyond it. Nor does it seem Congress would actually remove Bush if it did put him on trial.

Short of that, Bush clearly does not view anything Congress might do as a meaningful impediment. After all, how many divisions does the Congress command?

The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would almost certainly rubber stamp a Bush coup. If not, like Jackson, he could ignore it as easily as he would ignore Congress.

What does that leave? There is much idle speculation now about what the armed forces would do. We also hear loose talk about "90 million gun owners."

From the public side, the only conceivable counter-force might be a national strike or an effective long-term campaign of general non-cooperation.

But we can certainly assume the mainstream media will give lock-step support to whatever the regime says and does. It's also a given that those likely to lead the resistance will immediately land in those new prisons being built by Halliburton et. al.

So how do we cope with the harsh realities of such a Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup?

We may have about a year to prepare. Every possible scenario needs to be discussed in excruciating detail.

For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2874

cleller
8/27/2012, 06:48 PM
I knew this all sounded familiar.






http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2874

Crazy. What happened after the GOP rigged the 2008 election? Something bad, I'll bet.

Wishboned
8/27/2012, 07:43 PM
Crazy. What happened after the GOP rigged the 2008 election? Something bad, I'll bet.

The same business as usual for the past 50 years or so I think.

hawaii 5-0
8/27/2012, 08:13 PM
I don't recall the Dems sponsoring the current voter suppression tactics being waged in Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.

Someone remind me who's behind it.

People that have voted for 50 years, even Vets, are gonna be turned away because they don't have a 'valid' ID card. All in an veiled effort to keep minorities from voting.
Jim Crow redeux.

5-0

okie52
8/27/2012, 08:24 PM
Sob Sob....it's just so unfair.

SoonerAtKU
8/28/2012, 02:30 PM
Unfair? Sure. Un-American? Hard to say.

The history of America as a republic is one of manipulating the vote. From initially allowing only white, land-owning males to vote down to the relative flood of eligible voters today, the drive has been to expand the voting pool to better represent our populace. Some would argue that this is in direct conflict with the ideals of the Framers, many of whom considered the "Majority" to be a dangerous enemy. They most certainly believed in a government by an enlightened and just few acting on behalf of the nation. It could be said that a move towards disenfranchisement is a return to our foundation as a nation.

Of course, if we go back to only white, land-owning men voting, then I'd imagine the differences between the two parties would all but evaporate. I'm sure you'd have a group of people who would be just fine with that, but it's hard to un-ring that bell.

SoonerProphet
8/28/2012, 02:52 PM
then I'd imagine the differences between the two parties would all but evaporate.

What differences?

okie52
8/28/2012, 02:56 PM
Unfair? Sure. Un-American? Hard to say.

The history of America as a republic is one of manipulating the vote. From initially allowing only white, land-owning males to vote down to the relative flood of eligible voters today, the drive has been to expand the voting pool to better represent our populace. Some would argue that this is in direct conflict with the ideals of the Framers, many of whom considered the "Majority" to be a dangerous enemy. They most certainly believed in a government by an enlightened and just few acting on behalf of the nation. It could be said that a move towards disenfranchisement is a return to our foundation as a nation.

Of course, if we go back to only white landmen voting, then I'd imagine the differences between the two parties would all but evaporate. I'm sure you'd have a group of people who would be just fine with that, but it's hard to un-ring that bell.

That would work for me.

SoonerAtKU
8/28/2012, 03:22 PM
What differences?

You mean the differences that there are now? Oh, I think you'd find that the parties would only differ on things like judicial review, defense, and states rights. Any and all social issues would be pushed to the fringe, since the only way to get elected would be to appeal to relatively wealthy white guys. You wouldn't exactly see someone run on a policy of equality for other groups, since those people wouldn't be able to vote for that candidate. The platforms would range from "I'm good for your business" to "I'm BETTER for your business."

To be absolutely clear, this is terrible, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be in a select few's best interests, though, and the history of American politics is doing what's in your best interest while limiting the ability of someone else to do what's in theirs.

SoonerAtKU
8/28/2012, 03:22 PM
That would work for me.

I'm absolutely sure it would.

soonercruiser
8/29/2012, 09:53 PM
I don't recall the Dems sponsoring the current voter suppression tactics being waged in Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.

Someone remind me who's behind it.

People that have voted for 50 years, even Vets, are gonna be turned away because they don't have a 'valid' ID card. All in an veiled effort to keep minorities from voting.
Jim Crow redeux.

5-0

NIce job of spewing the LW talking points 5-O.
What's wrong with ensuring everyone voting is really entiltled to vote?
So, What if half of Dem voters in Illinois are legally dead!
I'm sure voter fraud is not in your LW vocabulary.

soonercruiser
8/29/2012, 09:54 PM
I don't recall the Dems sponsoring the current voter suppression tactics being waged in Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.

Someone remind me who's behind it.

People that have voted for 50 years, even Vets, are gonna be turned away because they don't have a 'valid' ID card. All in an veiled effort to keep minorities from voting.
Jim Crow redeux.

5-0

And of course, the Philly New Black Panther voter intimidation video was faked, wasn't it Mr. Holder?
Are you Holder's son?

TheHumanAlphabet
8/30/2012, 12:44 AM
B. frickin' S. the leftwingnut idea that id requirements will prevent legit people from voting. This is about leftwingnuts staying in power, pure and simple. Their lame ideas cannot stand the sensibility of budget and freedom, so they have to overwhelm the polls with illegal votes in order to win.

SCOUT
8/30/2012, 12:52 AM
Would you vote for other people to pay higher taxes? Kind of a loaded question, don't you think?

olevetonahill
8/30/2012, 01:08 AM
I don't recall the Dems sponsoring the current voter suppression tactics being waged in Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.

Someone remind me who's behind it.

People that have voted for 50 years, even Vets, are gonna be turned away because they don't have a 'valid' ID card. All in an veiled effort to keep minorities from voting.
Jim Crow redeux.

5-0

If they are too stupid to get an ID then they are too stupid to vote

SouthCarolinaSooner
8/30/2012, 06:58 AM
If they are too stupid to get an ID then they are too stupid to vote
Thankfully for many on this forum, intelligence/aptitude is not a requirement to vote

olevetonahill
8/30/2012, 07:06 AM
Thankfully for many on this forum, intelligence/aptitude is not a requirement to vote

Well aint you clever, Are you even old enough to vote?