Congressman Ron Paul (R) TX warns of coming gun confiscation


PDA






CentralTexas
October 13, 2005, 11:58 AM
Republican Congressman Slams Bush On Militarized Police State Preparation

Ron Paul says indictment story is far more damaging than media is portraying, avian flu martial law provisions aimed at gun confiscation

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | October 12 2005

Congressman Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of an avian flu pandemic. Paul also slammed as delusional and dangerous plans to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea and China.

Ron Paul represents the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He also serves on the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, and the International Relations committee.

Paul appeared on the Alex Jones show yesterday and raised some interesting points about the possibility of imminent indictments of top Bush administration figures.

"I think there's a lot more excitement coming and it's not going to be good for the Republicans," stated Paul.

"The things that I hear have to do with Karl Rove and Abramoff and that's much much worse than anybody would believe and it involves DeLay as well."

"And that type of an indictment will be much more serious than the indictment of shifting campaign funds around.....there's some political infighting which could make that really interesting."

On the subject of the police state, Paul stated, "If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."

"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."
"I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."

Paul responded to President Bush's announcement last week that he would order the use of military assets to police America in the event of an avian flu outbreak.

"To me it's so strange that the President can make these proposals and it's even plausible. When he talks about martial law dealing with some epidemic that might come later on and having forced quarantines, doing away with Posse Comitatus in order to deal with natural disasters, and hardly anybody says anything. People must be scared to death."

Paul, himself a medical doctor, agreed that the bird flu threat was empty fearmongering.

"I believe it is the President hyping this and Rumsfeld, but it has to be in combination with the people being fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse. My first reaction going from my political and medical background is that it's way overly hyped and to think that they have gone this far with it, without a single case in the whole country and they're willing to change the law and turn it into a military state? That is unbelievable! They're determined to have martial law."

Paul opined that the martial law provisions now being promoted by the Bush administration were a direct response to people's unwillingness to relinquish their firearms, as was seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

Paul opined that the government was on a delusional power trip that threatened the country.

"These guys are ready to start a war with Iran, Syria, North Korea or China. They can't possibly do that, it's so insane, we don't have the money, we don't have the troops, we probably don't even have the ammunition."

"But, if they are truly delusional they just might do something that's totally irrational."

Paul expressed his hope that finally some conservatives are waking up to the fact that the Bush administration is a trojan horse, especially after arch-liberal Harriet Miers was chosen by Bush to supposedly move the Supreme Court to the right, even though her record is atrocious and she has been involved in the past covering up for the Bush crime family's activities.

If you enjoyed reading about "Congressman Ron Paul (R) TX warns of coming gun confiscation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
October 13, 2005, 12:04 PM
If I were a U.S. Senator, I'd be known as "The Ron Paul of the Senate."

ScottsGT
October 13, 2005, 12:11 PM
They can have my Cold, Dead Chicken when they pry it from my hands!

Or something like that............ :evil:

Art Eatman
October 13, 2005, 12:16 PM
To add a bit of dimension to Rep. Paul's remarks:

In no way do I believe Bush thinks in terms of a "police state", even if that's the outcome of his ideas. The man sincerely thinks he's doing good for the country, even in a Ralph Nader sense of protectionism.

Dubya was raised in a family which was specifically government as to career. He grew up in LBJ's "Great Society", with people who believe that government not only can but should try to solve social problems. Dubya is essentially a good-hearted guy who doesn't see the potential harm in his views of making life better for people in general.

I'm not saying his advisors think in that manner. By and large, NeoCons are nowhere near the traditional Conservative view in political philosophy. I think that is shown by the willingness to ignore economic realities and by the militaristic view for foreign policy.

A flip comment might be that Bush doesn't really understand the limitations on government of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the NeoCons don't care.

We seem to be stuck with that ancient notion about "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." It's the good-intention part of "safety and security at all costs" that has given us such things as the Patriot Act and now this protection against Avian Flu...

Art

thereisnospoon
October 13, 2005, 12:17 PM
Imagine that, someone finally announcing publicly what we've all known for a long time...

Bush is just like his Father, WORTHLESS.

And that comes from someone who voted for him TWICE, albeit because he was the lesser of the tweedles {that being tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber (Kerry)}.

The Gov't is fatter and happier post Bush than its been in the last 50 years.

Someone capable of running our country please stand up!

pax
October 13, 2005, 12:21 PM
Someone capable of running our country please stand up!
They did. They do every election cycle.

But you voted for the lesser of two evils -- and got evil.

(Does it matter if Bush is merely stupid, or deliberately evil? The outcome of his policies is the same, either way.)

pax

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the People against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well. But they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- Senator Daniel Webster

Rockrivr1
October 13, 2005, 12:24 PM
You know it's pretty scary when you actually think about martial law and the military establishing what they call "Law and Order". On an online board like this many people say they will have to pry the gun from their cold dead hands. But realistically what would you really do. If they bang on your door demanding you leave, or turn over your guns and supplies for the greater good what are your options. Two as I see it. Do as they order or resist and die.

To do what they order, you could potentially end up dead anyway or at least barely surviving. To resist would mean a conflict with the US Military. I don't care how macho you think you are. Your single trigger finger will be no match for fully auto weapons, grenades, armored vehicles etc. Dead that way to. Hummmm, not seeing any up sides to this scenario.

3rdpig
October 13, 2005, 12:30 PM
The man sincerely thinks he's doing good for the country. He grew up in LBJ's "Great Society", with people who believe that government not only can but should try to solve social problems. Dubya is essentially a good-hearted guy who doesn't see the potential harm in his views of making life better for people in general.

After I read this it dawned on me that this descriptioin could also apply to Bill Clinton. And while I am, for the most part, a supporter of Bush, I can't think of anything more damning than a description that also applies to Clinton.

Silver Bullet
October 13, 2005, 12:34 PM
But you voted for the lesser of two evils -- and got evil.
If I had voted third party, might I have gotten the greater of two evils ?

pax
October 13, 2005, 12:39 PM
Silver Bullet ~

Sure. And all the people who are currently cheering on the power grab (because an elephant suggested it) would instead be fighting it tooth & nail (because a donkey suggested it).

But you've got to answer to your own conscience. Me, I'm glad I didn't have anything to do with putting this man in office. I think he's done more damage to Constitutional rights than any other president in my lifetime has ever even dreamed of ... and that's saying a lot.

pax

Art Eatman
October 13, 2005, 12:54 PM
3rdpig: Yup. It ain't a matter of personal character, as to political beliefs. But I'll say that Clinton's beliefs had little to do with his drive for political power. I don't really think he believed all he said. I think Bush does, and that's often the scary part.

Anybody sez he has YOUR best interests at heart is usually lying. Somebody who in some fashion says, "I believe this is best for me and you and the way I want the country to go, since I gotta live here, too." is far more credible.

Art

bakert
October 13, 2005, 12:54 PM
Do I sense a bit of paranoia in this thread. :confused:

rick_reno
October 13, 2005, 01:00 PM
We seem to be stuck with that ancient notion about "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Art - I'm not worried about Bush and these sorts of things. What does worry me is someone like Hillary (name your demon) with legislation/plans/executive orders like this in place. Unfortunately, these things will live on well past his Presidency and that could be a nightmare.

Henry Bowman
October 13, 2005, 01:05 PM
To do what they order, you could potentially end up dead anyway or at least barely surviving. To resist would mean a conflict with the US Military. I don't care how macho you think you are. Your single trigger finger will be no match for fully auto weapons, grenades, armored vehicles etc. Dead that way to. Hummmm, not seeing any up sides to this scenario. The hope would be that word would spread, causing the front line humans in the US Military to rethink the propriety of their actions, thereby allowing the first deaths not to be in vain. This means that if you are not among the first to die trying (on principle), then it would be your duty to spread the word of what had transpired far and wide.

Fortunately, the post-Katrina gun grabbing stopped quickly. If it had not, and word of what was happening had spread to other self-reliant citizens, there would have been blood shed eventually.

Waitone
October 13, 2005, 01:06 PM
Interesting you use the word "paranoia."

http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/

While I admire Ron Paul and his principled stands, my jury is out on Alex Jones.

yucaipa
October 13, 2005, 01:07 PM
I'm not a card carrying member of the President's Ra-Ra club but, reading the article Ron Paul is the one who comes off looking like the paranoid nutjob

Henry Bowman
October 13, 2005, 01:08 PM
Art - I'm not worried about Bush and these sorts of things. What does worry me is someone like Hillary (name your demon) with legislation/plans/executive orders like this in place. Unfortunately, these things will live on well past his Presidency and that could be a nightmare. Exactly, although I'm losing my comfort a bit with Bush.

The rule to follow in our structure of government is that you must not give to yourself (as a .gov official) any power that you would not trust to your most extreme political opponent. Someday, they are likely to be in power.

Henry Bowman
October 13, 2005, 01:11 PM
reading the article Ron Paul is the one who comes off looking like the paranoid nutjob Despite my earlier post, I agree. However, Ron Paul did not write the article. Consider the bias (whether the author wants to make Bush or Paul look bad for the benefit of the left).

Art Eatman
October 13, 2005, 01:16 PM
rick & Henry, it's just that notion that got me "all paranoid" :) from the Patriot Act.

Bush comes off as a basically "I like people" guy. Hillary strikes me as one who definitely does not like people who are at all different in any way from her and her crowd. I think she'd be worse than Lyndon as far as using governmental powers against perceived enemies. His favorite tool was the IRS. She would have the "benefit" of forty years of new, abusive power.

Art

Alex45ACP
October 13, 2005, 01:18 PM
How is this "paranoid"?

Jorge wants to use the military in a law enforcement role.

If you think people who point out the dangers of this are paranoid, you really need to open a history book.

Alex45ACP
October 13, 2005, 01:22 PM
To do what they order, you could potentially end up dead anyway or at least barely surviving. To resist would mean a conflict with the US Military. I don't care how macho you think you are. Your single trigger finger will be no match for fully auto weapons, grenades, armored vehicles etc. Dead that way to. Hummmm, not seeing any up sides to this scenario.

You can die defending yourself, or you can die on your knees in a camp somewhere.

After they've taken your guns it's only a matter of time till you're being crammed into a cattle train.

I would gladly die protecting my rights and maybe helping make the situation better for others, than realize I made the wrong choice while I'm being led to the "showers".

molonlabe
October 13, 2005, 01:45 PM
To do what they order, you could potentially end up dead anyway or at least barely surviving. To resist would mean a conflict with the US Military. I don't care how macho you think you are. Your single trigger finger will be no match for fully auto weapons, grenades, armored vehicles etc. Dead that way to. Hummmm, not seeing any up sides to this scenario.

Maybe someone should tell that to North Vietnam. I think they missed that point.

wingman
October 13, 2005, 01:58 PM
[QUOTE]I'm not saying his advisors think in that manner (Quote:)

Long a concern of mine with this administration, "advisers", most of these
people live in a glass bubble have no idea what life is like for the masses
and honestly don't care. What freedom we have left is hanging by a
thread, as the population increases much in part from other countries,
cultures, our government will feel the need to control more and more
of our lives. Remember power and money in the end that is what will
be protected to think otherwise is naive.

odysseus
October 13, 2005, 02:06 PM
reading the article Ron Paul is the one who comes off looking like the paranoid nutjob

Not that I agree going on the "Alex Jones show" adds to one's credibility - in fact it pretty much confuses it, but I actually think its good that this is being discussed by a Senator. Paranoid maybe, but calling him a nutjob from this article is not warranted IMO. I can't say looking at the current paths of things in this way is bad; it's a course of discussion that has its place.

thereisnospoon
October 13, 2005, 02:10 PM
Pax,

Ouch! You hurt my wittle feewings!

Really, I know what you said is true, I did vote for the lesser of two evils, because I thought the man would do a good job the first time and knew the other would destroy us the second time.

Turns out I was wrong. I admitt it, freely.

That being said I asked for someone CAPABLE to run our country please stand up. Maybe what I should have asked for was someone who Capably understood the Constitution to stand up and give it a whirl.

Fletchette
October 13, 2005, 02:17 PM
In no way do I believe Bush thinks in terms of a "police state", even if that's the outcome of his ideas. The man sincerely thinks he's doing good for the country, even in a Ralph Nader sense of protectionism.

And therin lies the problem: since he truly believes that he is doing good for the country he is deaf to criticism.

I am certainly in favor of having leaders with genuine beliefs; Klinton had no beliefs other than more power for himself. However, history shows us that some of the most damaging dictators truly believed what they were doing, no matter how crazy it seems to us, was for the good of the country. Read Hilter's speeches, Stalin, Mao...even their personal writings not intended for public consumption reveal a divinity complex. They think they are infallible.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court is the real problem. They have a duty to judge unConstitutional laws such as the Patriot Act, Imminent Domain abuse, and McCain-Feingold as "unConstitutional", but don't. If we had a real Supreme Court the snowball would never started rolling. :(

wingman
October 13, 2005, 02:19 PM
[QUOTE]That being said I asked for someone CAPABLE to run our country please stand up. Maybe what I should have asked for was someone who Capably understood the Constitution to stand up and give it a whirl.Quote:

Agreed, but could that person be elected, I believe the media would
cut him/her out within days.

longeyes
October 13, 2005, 02:50 PM
What I find scary is the lack of public debate and the lack of public outrage--about this and a number of other critical issues determining the future of this Republic.

So far the stentorian rhetoric on talk radio has yet to reach the streets. The general hypnotic state prevails.

Henry Bowman
October 13, 2005, 03:02 PM
What I find scary is the lack of public debate and the lack of public outrage--about this and a number of other critical issues determining the future of this Republic. Though the price of freedom is as high as ever, its perceived value seems to be at an all time low.

longeyes
October 13, 2005, 03:09 PM
Oh people want freedom: the freedom to consume and be left to party.

Not all, all too many.

That's not going to change until it has to.

I frankly don't think martial law would work in the U.S., not that the prospect isn't scary. We don't have enough military to deal with a nation this size, even if all of them were on the same page.

wingman
October 13, 2005, 03:24 PM
[QUOTE]I frankly don't think martial law would work in the U.S., not that the prospect isn't scary. We don't have enough military to deal with a nation this size, even if all of them were on the same page.Quote:


Longeyes, I agree however we are so divided as a people many would simply
give up sad to say.

TheOtherOne
October 13, 2005, 03:54 PM
While I admire Ron Paul and his principled stands, my jury is out on Alex Jones.I would say Alex Jones is a nutjob that I happen to agree with some of the time.

After seeing one of his movies I came to the conclusion that he's probably not really as crazy and paranoid as he would have everyone believe, he just puts on the act because it gets more attention and he can sell more videos.

Fletchette
October 13, 2005, 04:07 PM
What I find scary is the lack of public debate and the lack of public outrage--about this and a number of other critical issues determining the future of this Republic.

I agree. It seems that there is a huge disconnect between various groups of citizens within our nation. In my circle of friends, even those that voted for W, there is astonishment and vitriolic criticism of the Patriot Act, Imminent Domain abuses, the use of torture, withholding due process for citizens like Jose Padilla, gun confiscation in New Orleans, the nomination of Miers, rampant overspending, doing nothing on illegal immigration...the list of Constitutional infringements rival the number of scandals Klinton could get himself into.

Yet, the media, the Democrats, and your "Average Joe" just doesn't seem to care. Even during the election debates I was just waiting for Kerry to attack W on the issue of Jose Padilla and the holding of others indefinitely without trial...but he never brought it up! This tells me that Kerry would have done the same.

I just don't know what it will take before people en masse start caring about these things. We, as a people, cannot fix these injustices if only 1% give a damn.

yucaipa
October 13, 2005, 04:27 PM
Paranoid maybe, but calling him a nutjob from this article is not warranted IMO. I can't say looking at the current paths of things in this way is bad; it's a course of discussion that has its place.


I didn't mean to insult Congressman Paul, the article is very poorly written with all hot button issues the only thing things missing from the story was the "black helicopters" and the "microwaves" :D

rick_reno
October 13, 2005, 06:27 PM
In my circle of friends, even those that voted for W, there is astonishment and vitriolic criticism of the Patriot Act, Imminent Domain abuses, the use of torture, withholding due process for citizens like Jose Padilla, gun confiscation in New Orleans, the nomination of Miers, rampant overspending, doing nothing on illegal immigration...the list of Constitutional infringements rival the number of scandals Klinton could get himself into.



These people are clearly un-American. It's vital in this time of need that we support this President and his policies - regardless of how wacko they might appear. I wouldn't hang around with these friends too much, they could be looking at a free ticket to GITMO. Give them sunscreen for a Christmas present.

wahsben
October 13, 2005, 07:00 PM
I am in the process of reading The State VS the People Is America becoming a police state. I purchased it from the JPFO website. I am not very far along but it is very interesting thought provoking and frightning. I recommend reading it especially for those who think it can't happen here.

Beethoven
October 13, 2005, 07:21 PM
I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet, but there aren't serious plans to invade China and/or N. Korea, are there? :scrutiny: :what:

That strikes me as the ultimate of stupid ideas.

rick_reno
October 13, 2005, 07:58 PM
I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet, but there aren't serious plans to invade China and/or N. Korea, are there? :scrutiny: :what:

That strikes me as the ultimate of stupid ideas.

I'm sure everyone here would know. We better not invade China, our stores would be empty if we went to war with them. N. Korea, who cares. I read yesterday they wanted millions of bicycles.

Standing Wolf
October 13, 2005, 08:03 PM
big government flourishes under Republicans.

The Republicrats and Democans both love big government.

spartacus2002
October 13, 2005, 08:08 PM
What I find scary is the lack of public debate and the lack of public outrage--about this and a number of other critical issues determining the future of this Republic.

A significant number of folks believe debate about the future of this Republic is fruitless at this point, and that time is better spent convincing others to "buy it cheap and stack it deep."

As for GW (aka "the best President that Mexico ever had"), he's like his father: A man born on third base, who thought he'd gotten there by hitting a triple. He didn't get where he's at because of any managerial ability or intelligence or wisdom; he got there and has stayed there on the basis of three things: (1) swagger, (2) rich donor's money, and (3) Karl Rove. Other than that, he's an empty suit who doesn't realize how effectively his handlers handle him.

cpileri
October 13, 2005, 08:32 PM
I think he's done more damage to Constitutional rights than any other president in my lifetime has ever even dreamed of ... and that's saying a lot.

pax

+1!
I hear often that with a Republican controlled House, Senate, and Presidency; ‘they’ still have not ‘done anything’.

Really?

They have legalized detaining persons indefinitely and secretly without charges or trial. (by declaring them an ‘enemy combatant’)

They have enacted sweeping consolidations of power to within the central government and brought most of the government under direct control of the President by restructuring most agencies and bureaus under the DHS, and federalized many formerly private industries/functions (i.e. airport security) under the Oval Office, which now has a virtual monopoly on force.

They have eliminated your property rights by allowing to go unchallenged the Kelo decision, which makes it legal for your local, state, or federal government to confiscate your property for their own financial gain.

They have brought under control virtually all interactions involving exchange of materials, no matter how small or personal, even that which is completely INTRAstate, by declaring that all exchanges can ‘affect INTERstate commerce’ and therefore can be regulated as INTERstate commerce.

They have made political free speech illegal prior to elections by signing the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech.

Isn’t that enough? Is there anything left?

Yes, just one more thing:

The President now wants to remove that pesky Posse Comitatus Act restriction so that he can use the military for domestic security duties.

How much more of 'nothing' do we want?

C-

pioneer
October 13, 2005, 09:13 PM
well,from my observations on whats going on in this country and whats taking place out in the world,i would have to say possibly that our troops wouldnt try to go for martial law.it only depends on how loyal they are to the constitution and bill of rights.as for as could martial law happen anyways? i would say yes,but it wouldnt be our troops doing it.it would be united nations troops.and before anyone out there starts with the tin hat scenario,i would say this.how many nations out there partake in united nation military troop involvement when we go into other countries? or when the united nations calls out for help?? :rolleyes: so people dont think it "cant" happen here. :uhoh:

Hawkmoon
October 13, 2005, 09:15 PM
Dubya was raised in a family which was specifically government as to career. He grew up in LBJ's "Great Society", with people who believe that government not only can but should try to solve social problems. Dubya is essentially a good-hearted guy who doesn't see the potential harm in his views of making life better for people in general.
He may be good-hearted ... or he may not. It is true that he comes from a family dedicated to political careers, but I'm glad you didn't call it "public service," because "self-service" would be a far more accurate description. My grandparents had GWB's grandfather, Prescott Bush, as a senator in Connecticut. They never had a single good word to say about the senator. I'm going to have to do some Googling, I think, but my fuzzy recollection is that there were some unseemly activities involved in Senator Prescott Bush's closet.

Mayhap the branch doesn't fall far from the tree.

spartacus2002
October 13, 2005, 09:23 PM
i would have to say possibly that our troops wouldnt try to go for martial law.it only depends on how loyal they are to the constitution and bill of rights.

The troops will not know any better, because they will be told there is a bird-flu quarantine they must enforce, or some other such hogwash.

ceetee
October 13, 2005, 09:42 PM
Every grass-roots person I hear or read about that takes a stand and speaks out about these kinds of things is instantly demonized... No matter whether it's Cindy Sheehan, or Joe Wilson... the far right has become so good at taking people down that anybody speaking out is thoroughly painted as "un-American" or "unpatriotic" (or even treasonous). If they can't smear them directly, they make up lies to discredit them. If those lies are found out, they just go for revenge.

They're whittling away at our civil rights, yes, but through legislation like "No Child Left Behind", they're taking steps to "dumb down" our children. A less educated populace is easier to control. With the carrot-and-stick of press access, they control nearly all of the "liberal" news media, knowing that if you control a person's information sources, you control that person's mind. They've paid "respectable" journalists to write propaganda couched in the form of editorial content.

I refuse to believe that all conservatives are like that... but the ones in charge are. Whatever has to happen better happen soon!

Biker
October 13, 2005, 09:43 PM
You pretty much nailed it, Spartacus. The troops are the last ones to know anything. We got the news the brass wanted us to get. If the battle hardened troopers from Iraq are used, they'll likely buy the whole tamale, short of firing on civies. NG types are less likely to do either. I know, I was pretty much there. You start to..*believe*. I worry sometimes...
Biker

Ryder
October 13, 2005, 09:46 PM
Ron Paul knows more inside info than any of us about what's going on in DC. Judging by his past performance I'll take this heads-up seriously. I haven't perceived that he is the kind of guy to jerk our strings for his own purposes.

they're concerned about the remnant
And what was that in New Orleans? Some infinitesimal percentage of the few who didn't actually evacuate in advance? They should worry if they are planning to send authorities into an intact community to run roughshod over them.

Here I was all ready to die nice and quiet in my own home from the flu this Winter only to find out I might actually get to fight evil. Sweet! What more could a guy guy ask for. Hahaha.

GunGoBoom
October 13, 2005, 10:04 PM
They did. They do every election cycle.

But you voted for the lesser of two evils -- and got evil.

Amen - +1

Don't blame me; I voted for the Libertarian party dude.

pioneer
October 13, 2005, 10:33 PM
as for me i voted for the constitutional party,but like it did any good. :(

roo_ster
October 13, 2005, 10:46 PM
Every grass-roots person I hear or read about that takes a stand and speaks out about these kinds of things is instantly demonized... No matter whether it's Cindy Sheehan, or Joe Wilson...
I can agree with you in some respects, especially when some person brings up uncomfortable truths, but I think we have different ideas of "grassroots."

Cindy Sheehan has been a leftist anti-war agitator for a while. She has the backing of the largest PR firm owned by lefties on the planet. Who was paying for a ll the chow, porta-potties, shelter, etc when Cheehan was camped out in Crawford? Who is paying to jet her around the 'states?

As for Joe Wilson, he was a high state dept official and ambasador. You don't get any less grassroots than that. The only time he was outside the beltway was when he was outside the country.

*****

GWB sure does seem to have faith in govt action.

dpesec
October 13, 2005, 11:01 PM
Startacus,
Perhaps something even worse than Bird Flu, a WMD terrorist attack that requires a major military response within the boarders. Think about the request that the military be the central first responder in a disaster. The groundwork is being laid even as we watch.

PromptCritical
October 14, 2005, 03:12 AM
I really don't know what to make of all this. The only thing I know for certain is I don't ever want to be put in the position of defending my life against our own military.:(

artherd
October 14, 2005, 03:40 AM
Do I sense a bit of paranoia in this thread. :confused:

There is LEGISLATION in the works to Suspend Posse Comitatus and you're calling US paranoid?

artherd
October 14, 2005, 03:44 AM
The only thing I know for certain is I don't ever want to be put in the position of defending my life against our own military.

THIS is exactly why the second ammendment exists and protects not only our right to keep and bear shoulder-fired arms smaller than 0.50" caliber. This is why it also protects my right to own a LAW, an M1A1 Abrams, an F-14 Tomcat with the Pheonix missile system if I so desire.

Joejojoba111
October 14, 2005, 06:14 AM
"To do what they order, you could potentially end up dead anyway or at least barely surviving. To resist would mean a conflict with the US Military. I don't care how macho you think you are. Your single trigger finger will be no match for fully auto weapons, grenades, armored vehicles etc. Dead that way to. Hummmm, not seeing any up sides to this scenario."

Not quite.

Ever wondered how so many millions of Jews, Gypsies, and untermenschen Gentiles were massacered by mere battalions of Germans? They gave up before they tried resisting. They were told they would be re-settled, or some nonsense, and they chose to believe it. They willingly submitted. They have made a sacrifice so that everyone can learn from it. DO not believe the bluster, the hype, the hoopla. A handful of holdouts in the Warsaw ghetto engaged battalions, with only improvised weapons and what they could acquire from their enemies!

If a time traveller went back and told only the Gypsies, or the Jews to resist, then they could not have been killed. It was a matter of logistics, there were not enough bullets to kill them all. There were not enough rifles, not enough soldiers, not enough shovels to dig enough graves, it was impossible. It required co-operation on the part of the victims.

There is no need to get into current-day specifics, but just imagine if every Jewish family in 1937 was equipped with a shotgun and 10 shells. At least 1 German would die in each entry, and that means you would want at least 30 Germans to storm each house. This requires that much food and vehicles and ammunition and fuel, and housing. If it takes only 30 minutes to clear an entire house, and round up the survivors and ship them off, then you can perform 20 clearances per day, due to transportation between sites, and briefings before entrance. And each day you lose 2/3 of your clearing soldiers. Say 3 million domestic Jews, say 10 per family, 1 family per house, You have 300,000 houses to clear, you will lose 300,000 soldiers doing so. The entire logistics train will take you another 300,000 men, and you will need 300,000 training as replacements.

As you can see, in the face of overwhelming defeat the most futile struggle imagineable will still cost the enemy nearly man for your 6 - 900,000 : 6,000,000.

Thats if each house only gets 1 shotgun blast off at the door before being overwhelmed.


Resistance is far from futile. The problem is that, as you see in the Warsaw Ghetto, resistance happens only as a very last resort, if it happens at all. But America has more militant spirit than most other countries, and this is what is giving those who plan the police state the greatest headaches.

SgtGunner
October 14, 2005, 09:25 AM
edited due to un pc content

dpesec
October 14, 2005, 09:50 AM
I was talking to some active duty friends about NO. To a man, they all said, the thought of pointing a rifle at an American was something they didn't want to do, let alone shooting at one.
This might give us something to think about.

scotjute
October 14, 2005, 10:11 AM
The US Army has some of the finest and most patriotic people in it I've ever met. Most of them take very seriously their vow to uphold the constitution of the United States.

Chrontius
October 14, 2005, 10:37 AM
They can have my Cold, Dead Chicken when they pry it from my hands!

Or something like that............ :evil:

Why do you have a dead chicken in your hands? Were you choking that poor bird? :evil:


Exactly, although I'm losing my comfort a bit with Bush.

The rule to follow in our structure of government is that you must not give to yourself (as a .gov official) any power that you would not trust to your most extreme political opponent. Someday, they are likely to be in power.
Losing? You don't read Slashdot, do you? Go read up on data mining, CAPPS, RFID, TIPS and all those other alphabet soup (Now with 66% more paranoia for a bigger, meatier flavor) acronyms. I never had any comfort with him; I was astounded that he let the AWB expire without any lobbying on his part and completely not suprised when he pledged to sign an extension if it got to his desk.

cspanjunky
October 14, 2005, 10:46 AM
I love Dr. Ron Paul. From 1995 to 1999 I video recorded every SPECIAL ORDER speech he gave on the House floor. He always gets my blood boiling. The mainstream media is never going to have serious, unbiased discussion on the 2nd Amendment or any other issue that's important to Americans. I'm not sure everyone here would agree with my politics, but no one is taking my weapons from me. I only own three at this time. My first birthday present from my father in 1965 was a Colt .22 and a hand made holster.

Getting back to the media and discussion, not the spin, I think C-SPAN is one of the only places real, unedited, undefiled coverage is ever going to happen.

The problem with Democracy is, We need more Democracy.
The problem with C-SPAN is, We need more C-SPAN.

I hope everyone here would support more C-SPAN to discuss the issues that can't be discussed in the corporate media.

Not to get too far off topic; please support more C-SPAN and real discussion of the Constitution.

To: U.S. Congress and the FCC


We, the undersigned, while believing in the importance of a Free Market and Freedom of Speech, also believe in the importance of The Public Airwaves to be used as mandated by the FCC "...In the Public Interest, Necessity, and Convenience." We believe the use of The Public Airwaves is crucial to spread knowledge, culture, and civics. We therefore write to petition you to consider major changes in the allocation of the Broadcast Spectrum.

The Public Airwaves are a Vast Toxic Wasteland.
Congress needs to hold hearing on THE STATE OF THE AIRWAVES.
They would find:

1) That the Broadcast and Cable companies have not lived up to using the Public Airwaves, as the FCC mandated "... in the spirit of Public Interest, Necessity, and Convenience."

2) That the FCC and Congress have " given away, rent free", the Public Airwaves.

3) That the Broadcast and Cable companies have "... made so much money doing IT'S worst, IT can't afford to do better."


In the 1990's the FCC, with much support from the Congress, auctioned off portions of the Broadcast Spectrum. One portion of the Spectrum that was being auctioned would potentially reach 16 million customers (citizens). Almost as many people as the population of the state of Texas.

That particular portion sold for $3.00. Three dollars! When former FCC chairman Reed was asked to comment, he said "...I wish I had three dollars".

This cavalier policy and stewardship of the Public Airwaves has been good for the Broadcast and Cable companies, and their stock holders. And absolutely hideous for Civics, Public Affairs, and Democracy.

Before 2009, the FCC will give away more of the Public Airwaves, worth between 80-100 billion dollars. Once again, the Public will be outside, looking in, as the Broadcast Spectrum goes to the highest campaign contributors.

What does the Public receive from the License holders, for their use of the Broadcast Spectrum? Inexpensive Cable and Satellite packages? Intellectually stimulating programs broadcast into our homes at no charge? Choices and Diversity? Event coverage and programming with redeemable qualities? Or is it "...500 channels and still there's nothing worth watching".

There are many Independent, Grassroots, and Localized ways to use the Broadcast Spectrum. But on the National level, the Country needs more Public affairs, more Civics. The unedited, undefiled paradigm C-SPAN has perfected, is the only thing We can all agree on. It promotes Democracy and Participation. Not even the corporate media conglomerates can be against Democracy.

We therefore call on the Congress, and the FCC, to hold hearings on the benefits of more C-SPAN. And to take steps to move forward with the endeavor of creating more C-SPAN Companion Networks. When there is more than enough Broadcast Spectrum to dedicate to Civics, Culture, History and Democracy, We should not allow greed to get in the way of the Public Interest, Necessity and Convenience.

Put the Public back in the Public Airwaves.

http://www.petitiononline.com/cspannow/

A country that has more ESPN networks than C-SPAN networks, is in trouble.

Justin
October 14, 2005, 11:06 AM
Alex Jones is a nut.

But when the tinfoil hat crowd starts to sound like they know what's up, I think that's a sign.

CentralTexas
October 14, 2005, 12:02 PM
-problem is if only 10% of what he says is true, we are screwed!
CT

Beethoven
October 14, 2005, 06:30 PM
There is LEGISLATION in the works to Suspend Posse Comitatus and you're calling US paranoid?


There is actual legislation in the works to do this????? :what: :what: :what:

Bartholomew Roberts
October 15, 2005, 12:22 PM
especially after arch-liberal Harriet Miers was chosen by Bush

Generally it has been my experience that if you already have a good argument, you don't need to rely on ridiculous hyperbole to make your point.

Burt Blade
October 15, 2005, 09:53 PM
If the other side of the political fence had proposed most of these recent laws, the howling on this forum would be audible without the cable connection.

Please don't say "That sort of thing cannot happen here!"

Ask some U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry about the possibility of the U.S. Government throwing _U.S. citizens_ into camps as "enemy" aliens. The Cherokee and other southeastern tribes wound up in Oklahoma, then most of that was taken away too. Once upon a time, the Supreme Court ruled that some folks were not really citizens. Later, they decided that even if they were citizens, they weren’t really the same as other citizens. As recently as this year, someone decided they could go door to door confiscating stuff and/or throwing folks out. You can also take their property if the new owner will pay higher taxes.

Even if you trust the current crowd 100%, and even if they are worthy of that trust, do you _really_ want to leave those sorts of laws around for the next administration?

spooney
October 15, 2005, 10:31 PM
If the other side of the political fence had proposed most of these recent laws, the howling on this forum would be audible without the cable connection.

Please don't say "That sort of thing cannot happen here!"

Ask some U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry about the possibility of the U.S. Government throwing _U.S. citizens_ into camps as "enemy" aliens. The Cherokee and other southeastern tribes wound up in Oklahoma, then most of that was taken away too. Once upon a time, the Supreme Court ruled that some folks were not really citizens. Later, they decided that even if they were citizens, they weren’t really the same as other citizens. As recently as this year, someone decided they could go door to door confiscating stuff and/or throwing folks out. You can also take their property if the new owner will pay higher taxes.

Even if you trust the current crowd 100%, and even if they are worthy of that trust, do you _really_ want to leave those sorts of laws around for the next administration?


The Cherokee also took their case to the supreme court and arguing that the Federal Government had no right to move them, won. The President at the time moved them anyway. Even if you are legally in the right this can still happen to you.

Sewerman
October 16, 2005, 09:38 AM
Its a sad state of afairs but America is beyond repair.
We are circling the drain. Amerika will have its first dictator in the next 20 years.
Read your history, our republic has already lived about 30 years longer than any other. Republics have always detiriorated into dictatorships. We have the dubious honor of living in "interesting times". :(

cspanjunky
October 16, 2005, 02:42 PM
Synopsis

Director Robert Kane Pappas’ ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE is the consummate critical examination of the Fourth Estate, once the bastion of American democracy. Asking whether America has entered an Orwellian world of doublespeak where outright lies can pass for the truth, Pappas explores what the media doesn’t like to talk about: itself.

Meticulously tracing the process by which media has distorted and often dismissed actual news events, Pappas presents a riveting and eloquent mix of media professionals and leading intellectual voices on the media.

Among the cast of characters in ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE are Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, Vincent Bugliosi, former L.A. prosecutor and legal scholar, film director and author Michael Moore, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Danny Schecter, author and former producer for ABC and CNN, and Tony Benn, former member of the British Parliament.

ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE provides a vital forum for ideas that will never be heard in mainstream media. From Globalvision’s Danny Schecter: “We falsely think of our country as a democracy when it has evolved into a mediacracy – where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is part of the political abuse.” New York University media professor Mark Crispin Miller says, “These commercial entities now vie with the government for control over our lives. They are not a healthy counterweight to government. Goebbels said that what you want in a media system – he meant the Nazi media system - is to present the ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.”

From the very size of the media monopolies and how they got that way to who decides what gets on the air and what doesn’t, ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE moves through a troubling list of questions and news stories that go unanswered and unreported in the mainstream media. Are Americans being given the information a democracy needs to survive or have they been electronically lobotomized? Has the frenzy for media consolidation led to a dangerous irony where in an era of more news sources the majority of the population has actually become less informed?

ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE reminds us that 1984 is no longer a date in the future.

http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/

beerslurpy
October 16, 2005, 03:06 PM
I think, but my fuzzy recollection is that there were some unseemly activities involved in Senator Prescott Bush's closet.

They made their initial money during the 30s funneling the nazi rearmament profits (Thiessen steel et al) onto US soil. They used their take to get into the oil business.

It wasnt illegal per se, but it was definitely an act that in retrospect seems morally dubious. They were simply helping a wealthy German industrialist to evade high taxes. They couldnt have predicted that the nazis would later declare war on the US or attempt to take over the world.

Fletchette
October 16, 2005, 03:14 PM
They couldnt have predicted that the nazis would later declare war on the US or attempt to take over the world.


Hmmm. I suppose that all of the globalists who are now funnelling money and technology into China couldn't predict that the Communists would...

utahminirevolver
October 16, 2005, 04:36 PM
I've known for quite some time now that the Democrats are mostly up to no good.

And now it turns out that the Republicans aren't much better.

So how do we get the Constitution party into power?

Fletchette
October 16, 2005, 05:09 PM
I've known for quite some time now that the Democrats are mostly up to no good.

And now it turns out that the Republicans aren't much better.

So how do we get the Constitution party into power?

Very good question. I wish I knew.

Unfortunately, our political system seems to have been undermined by the "two party system" (note that political parties were never mentioned in the Constitution). Through House rules, Senate rules, gerrymandering and ballot laws, it is virtually impossible for a third party to gain any power, or even get on the ballot. Pile McCain-Feingold on top of this system, and it is virtually impossible to even find out about third parties.

I think the only plausible hope for saving the Republic is for individual states to take back much of the power the Federal government has stolen from them. As an example, if Washington State simply refused to prosecute any and all marijuana charges, the Feds would end up spending an enormous amount of money stepping in to do that. Montana also came very close to passing a law that would require any Federal police agencies to notify the sheriff of any county they were performing operations in. This would prevent any Waco-type operations from occurring.

Of course, these actions would certainly provoke a confrontation with the Fed.

Strings
October 17, 2005, 02:04 AM
Honestly, almost every third party option suffers from the same problem: too extreme.

The Greens tend to make the Dems look like centrists. The Libertarians have too many disparate planks to cohesively a large number of people together. The Constitution boys have too much religion mixed in to their platform. Etc...

About the ONLY way I can see a third party happening is if the moderates of both the Dems and the Rebubs get together and form their own. Which wouldn't be bad, either...

CAnnoneer
October 17, 2005, 02:34 AM
The problem is most people are asleep. They dream of some pink ideal, an America that never was but should be, while the real situation deteriorates every year. There is only one big party now, the Authoritarians, and it has been successfully dismantling the checks and balances of our fine country for awhile now. The average Joe is the proverbial slow-boiled frog.

If you enjoyed reading about "Congressman Ron Paul (R) TX warns of coming gun confiscation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!