PDA

View Full Version : What constitution



Qtec
12-07-2006, 10:38 AM
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Bush legalizes martial law -- what Constitution?
On Oct 17, George Bush quietly signed a bill allowing him to declare martial law. The Toward Freedom website summarizes it:
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

web page (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/29/bush_legalizes_marti.html)
Original article. here (http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911)


q

Gayle in MD
12-07-2006, 12:14 PM
Unbelievable!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Sid_Vicious
12-07-2006, 05:23 PM
Gayle,

I've more than half way suspected the Bush will create a situation ahead of 2008 and put us into martial law, so he can put off the election and stay in office. Seems to me that the stage is being set right now. I hope this a bogus news, but it sure seems to have the footnotes for validity of references. I sure hope this gets media coverages, if it is indeed real...sid

Gayle in MD
12-08-2006, 06:39 AM
No wonder he goes ballistic every time there is a leak, unless he is the leaker, he freaks! I notice he didn't say anything much about the convenient leaks, last week, lol.

This is par, reminds me of when he tried to quietly sell our port contracts to an Arab country with ties to bin Laden!

Gayle in Md.

Chopstick
12-08-2006, 08:47 AM
"allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

<font color="blue">Excuse me for noticing but isn't this exactaly what all of you were complaining about when he did not do this in New Orleans?

You complained because he did not send in the Army when he had no legal authority to do so and now you complain that he fixed it so he can. Did you even bother to go and read the bill? </font color>

Gayle in MD
12-08-2006, 09:00 AM
Hi Chopstick,
Key word here, is "Quietly" ....also,
Just for clarrification, in natural disasters, it is a myth, that the President has no authority to send in the National Guard, and also, the vidio which came out after the fact, proved that Bush had not told the truth about what the Govorner had requested in advance of land fall, and what he knew in advance, and that afterwards, he never bothered to turn his TV on, but instead, made tracks to a fund raiser dinner, while people in New Orleans were dying.

Just to clarrify... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Also... I seem to remember President Johnson, in the dark, in hip boots, wading in the flood waters with a search light, calling out..."I'm here...and we're bringing you some help! Can you hear me?" That was back in the day, before fly-over AF1 window view, conservative compassion.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif





`

eg8r
12-09-2006, 05:14 PM
You are excused. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif They don't really care at all about any of this crap they post. They are only interested in trying to find ways to belittle the President. You are correct, they whined to the high heavens then (without having a single thing to say about the ineffectiveness of the local government) and cry foul now. Remember when they moaned about FEMA screwing up with the trailers but having nothing to say about all the buses sitting under water in a parking lot while people were having to climb on top of their houses for safety?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-09-2006, 06:24 PM
For you Martin...

"Some general, and even systematical, idea of the perfection of policy and law, may no doubt be necessary for directing the views of the statesman. But to insist upon establishing, and upon establishing all at once, and in spite of all opposition, every thing which that idea may seem to require, must often be the highest degree of arrogance. It is to erect his own judgment into the supreme standard of right and wrong. It is to fancy himself the only wise and worthy man in the commonwealth, and that his fellow-citizens should accommodate themselves to him and not he to them. It is upon this account, that of all political speculators, sovereign princes are by far the most dangerous.

This arrogance is perfectly familiar to them. They entertain no doubt of the immense superiority of their own judgment. When such imperial and royal reformers, therefore, condescend to contemplate the constitution of the country which is committed to their government, they seldom see any thing so wrong in it as the obstructions which it may sometimes oppose to the execution of their own will. They hold in contempt the divine maxim of Plato, and consider the state as made for themselves, not themselves for the state. The great object of their reformation, therefore, is to remove those obstructions; to reduce the authority of the nobility; to take away the privileges of cities and provinces, and to render both the greatest individuals and the greatest orders of the state, as incapable of opposing their commands, as the weakest and most insignificant," - Adam Smith, a conservative of doubt, "Theory of Moral Sentiments."


/ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

DickLeonard
12-11-2006, 09:02 AM
Eg8r Come on we do not have to find ways to belittle GWB he does every time he gets before a camera. He is what I call Tubess Boobess. Just put him on camera.####

Gayle in MD
12-11-2006, 09:25 AM
LMAO! I like that one...
Eg, blames the Mayor, and Govenor of N.O. because the bus drivers fled one of the worst natural disasters in history, but give Bush a pass for appointing incompetent people to operate this countries Federal Emregency Response Agency, and lying about what the Governor asked him for, and when, and what he knew about the levees, and when he knew it! He was too busy vacationing, and fund raising to turn the damn TV on, in the middle of our worst Natural Disaster! Fortunately, the video tape turned up later, and proved he lied, yet again! Bush could bomb California, and Eg, would defend him.

Gayle in Md.

Chopstick
12-11-2006, 01:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hi Chopstick,
Key word here, is "Quietly"
<font color="blue">The bill was passed by both houses of Congress and was a matter of public record, viewable by anyone who was interested, long before it got to his desk. </font color>

....also,
Just for clarrification, in natural disasters, it is a myth, that the President has no authority to send in the National Guard,
<font color="blue"> The govenor is the commander of the National Guard and can call them out whenever they want, not the president. It isn't a myth, it is a federal law.

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on 1878-06-18 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the President of the United States of America's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

Generally speaking, a sitting president does not assume control over state National Guard unless a specific request originates from a governor. No such request originated from Blanco's office in the aftermath of Katrina. In fact, shortly before midnight on Friday, September 2, the Bush administration sent governor Blanco a request to take over command of law enforcement and the state National Guard, but this request was rejected by Blanco. Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi also rejected a similar request.

I am more inclined to believe that the video you are referring to is a myth.

</font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
12-11-2006, 04:41 PM
No, the video isn't a myth. It was shown on all the news channels. I'm surprised you don't remember it, because it it proved that Bush had been lying when he said "Nobody knew the levees would break." That statement proved to be false, as was proven in the video. In the video, he was told, by Michael Brown, I believe, that they expected the levees would not hold.

Also, he was told by the Governor, "I'm going to need all the help I can get."

Exactly what kind of help, would be difficult to predict in advance of landfall. Nevertheless, it became obvious that the Federal government failed to deliver food and water, in a timely manner, and that FEMA, basically screwed up in their responsibilities. Michael Brown, Director of FEMA, was appointed by George Bush, was he not?

It has been a while, so rather than rely on my memory, I will try to find the info for you. There is no law prohibiting Presidential action of sending in the National Guard, in the case of natural Disasters. This atricle which you show, seems to address itself to lawlessness, insurrection, and rebellion, and as I recall, when the Governor, and the mayor, were in need, the president stated himself, that he didin't even know the levees had broken. They had to make him a video to take with him on AF1. The rest of us were watching live, while the victims were begging for supplies. George Bush, was on vacation. He was at a fund raiser, and apparently, didn't bother to check into the aftermath of landfall for forty eight hours, atleast, according to his own statements at the time.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Chopstick
12-11-2006, 05:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> No, the video isn't a myth. It was shown on all the news channels. I'm surprised you don't remember it,
Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

Don't be suprised. Since May I have lived my life entirely inside cyberspace for work. I only catch bits and pieces of life here and there. I am well compensated for the work that I do but sometimes it is neccessary for me to leave the world behind to do the things that I do. I just felt like talking about something in the few minutes that I have.

Gayle in MD
12-11-2006, 05:11 PM
I know what you mean, friend...here's a link to the video...http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/1/194716/0679

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/1/194716/0679


Crooks and Liars has a video up of what appears to be a Presidential video conference recorded a day or more before Katrina made landfall and flooded the city of New Orleans. The video shows both FEMA Director Mike "Heckuva job" Brownie saying he had a gut feeling this would be the "big one" and storm meteorologist Max Mayfield standing in front of a radar image indicating a breach in the levees, specifically from Lake Pontchartrain driven by high winds, was a concern:


[Link] "I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Bush on Good Morning America, Thursday Sep 1, three days after Katrina made landfall:


[Source WAPO] "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."

Seems to me, it Still hasn't been dealth with to anyone's satisfaction. Of course, we all know know, about the wasted FEMA trailors, and lack of oversight on handing out the money for the victims, and, well, shall we say, Bush's fly over three days later, wasn't exactly like rushing to respond to our worst major natural disaster.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
12-11-2006, 05:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
KATRINA TIMELINE
Comment on the timeline here.

Friday, August 26
GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA [Office of the Governor]

GULF COAST STATES REQUEST TROOP ASSISTANCE FROM PENTAGON: At a 9/1 press conference, Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, commander, Joint Task Force Katrina, said that the Gulf States began the process of requesting additional forces on Friday, 8/26. [DOD]

Saturday, August 27
GOV. HALEY BARBOUR DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN MISSISSIPPI [Office of the Governor]

5AM CDT — KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE [CNN]

GOV. BLANCO ASKS BUSH TO DECLARE FEDERAL STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: “I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.” [Office of the Governor]

FEDERAL EMERGENCY DECLARED, DHS AND FEMA GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO KATRINA: “Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.” [White House]

<hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline)

The official report spread the blame, its didn't just criticise the Govt and FEMA.
The fact that they were all incompetent doesn't demand a change in the USC.
The Law wasn't at fault.
GW is attempting to change the USC, "that bit of paper" as he calls it, thru the back door.

BTW, how many read the Patriot Act before it was passed?

Q

Gayle in MD
12-12-2006, 06:41 AM
Thanks Q. I recall the testimony of Michael Brown, also, about how Chertoff would not cooperate with him, even before Katrina, during Florida Hurricanes, and how he had himself, called in a private firm, to study and assess operational functionality of FEMA. He said he had given up, trying to work through Chertoff, who blocked, not only his efforts to streamline the whole process, but also, to give FEMA the money it needed to improve response to national disasters, which was blocked by Chertoff, who turned a deaf ear to all of Brown's requests. In the Senate hearings, Brown was made the scape goat, but fortunately for him, as I recall, he responded with documentation which proved that he had been in an on-going process of trying to warn the administration of the disaster of lumping FEMA in with the Department of Homeland Security. A computerized mock hurricane predicted the results in New Orleans, way before Katrina was ever even heard of. Brown, had taken to by-passing Chertoff, and working through White House channels, when dealing with disasters before Katrina, yet, after the failures, Brown was axed, Chertoff is still in charge, FEMA is still left under the mantle of DHS, and under the control of a man who has proven his incompetence.

Typical, dysfunctional "Par for the course" M.O. of Bush, and his administration. The sad part of all this, is that so many Americans, still do not know the facts about how the President, totally failed to respond to a National Disaster. And, also, how many partisan Bushites, even after seeing Americans floating in flood waters, dying in the aftermath, and still without a roof over their heads, are still, more than eager to deny reality, rather than assess, realistically the incompetence, and complete lack human compassions, displayed over and over, by George W. Bush, the worst president to ever live in the White House.

Gayle in Md.

dr_jones_923
12-17-2006, 08:58 PM
So does this mean the fight I am fighting is not valid? If you have heard this made national news. Eastpointe, MI unfair judge. My beef is the "Martial Law" Flag she flies in her courtroom.

Here's the links (there are a ton more if you search):
http://www.goeastpointe.com/Article9.phtml

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200661213030

http://www.topix.net/forum/city/eastpointe-mi/TF0OJ0IOB1TI245UG

Here is the problem in her courtroom:

Our Flag is not only a symbol of our states, it represents our constitutional rights. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!! I don't want myself or anyone else losing their constitutional rights like so many have in the past months. This is illegal!!! Any Judge would say "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE" Why dosnt Redmond know this? Her excuse is "The flag was donated". I don't care if Jesus himself gave her the flag... By federal LAW this is illegal and punishable by a one year prison term. (This is cited reference material... LOOK IT UP YOURSELF)
Judge Norene Redmond mail@judgeredmond.com wrote:

Thank you very much for your thoughts. The flag that is displayed in the courtroom was donated to the court by the VFW.

Currently, the Flag of the united States of America is defined as :

The American Flag of Peace of the united States of America is described as red, white and blue, with thirteen alternating red and white horizontal stripes, and a blue field (union) with 50 stars, one to represent each of the several States. The Flag is proportional,(1 X 1.9). This proportion is easily determined by measuring the length (fly) and dividing by the measurement of the width (hoist). The length divided by the width should be very nearly 1.9. If the flag is not to the correct 1 X 1.9 proportion, it is NOT an OFFICIAL TITLE 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 American Flag of Peace of the united States of America.

Title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 and Presidential Executive Order 10834, found in the Federal Register at Vol. 24. No. 166, P.6365 - 6367.

Title 4 U.S.C. 3 provides that anything put on the title 4 U.S.C., 1, 2 American Flag such as gold fringe MUTILATES the Flag and carries a one-year prison term. This is confirmed by the authority of title 36 U.S.C. 176 (g). The gold fringe is a fourth color and represents "color of military law" jurisdiction and when placed on the title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 Flag, mutilates the Flag and SUSPENDS the Constitution.(Refer to title 18 U.S.C. 242, see Black's Law Dictionary).

As provided by title 36 U.S.C. 173 and Army Regulation 840-10, chapter 2-1(b), the Flag of the united States of America is defined and described in title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2. Civilians MUST use the title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 Flag (see title 36 U.S.C. 173 and Army Regulation 840-10, chapter 2-7) and when military flags are displayed by Army Regulation 840-10, chapter 2 and title 36 U.S.C. 175

The judges, with deliberate intent, and by overt judicial acts, are surrendering the Constitution of the united states of America to a foreign state/power as is denoted by the yellow or gold fringe flag in the courtroom, thereby causing any party appearing before his court a loss of their Constitutional RIGHTS. Judges or other officers that swear an oath and affirmation to support and defend the Constitution for the united states of America and then surrender and erect 'foreign enclaves' upon the soil of the several States in breach of Article IV, Section 3, ARE GUILTY, by definition, of constructive treason, against the People.
When all of the title 4 U.S.C. 1, 2 official American Flags are gone, the united states of America and our precious Constitution are dead.

President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that:"A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides."
This is what this gold fringed flag flown in a courtroom means:"... a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the nation whose flag she flies. The term is used to designate the RIGHTS under which a ship owner, who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ref.: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41
This means:
When you enter a courtroom displaying a gold or yellow fringed flag, you have just entered into a foreign country, and you better have your passport with you, because you may not be coming back to the land of the free for a long time. The judge sitting under a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the "captain" or "master" of that ship or enclave and he or she has absolute power to make the rules as he or she goes. The gold or yellow fringe flag is your warning that you are leaving your Constitutionally secured RIGHTS on the floor outside the door to that courtroom.


Here is the Constitutional law that is broken:
Under Article IV, section 3, of the Constitution for the united States of America, no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State.


Here are more cited references:
The Manual of Courts Martial", U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art. 99,(c)(1)(b), pg. IV-34, PIN 030567-0000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41
(Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush KY, 8)

S0Noma
12-18-2006, 11:12 AM
Sounds like you might benefit from a little vacation away from sharp objects. Some place padded and quiet where you would have the time to sort things out and no one other than the orderlies bringing your medication would interrupt your thoughts - such as they are.

I say this while strenuously attempting to avoid eye contact.

(Sonoma looks down at the floor while scuffing it with the toe of his shoe - glancing furtively towards the closest exit and measuring the distance.)

dr_jones_923
12-19-2006, 08:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> Sounds like you might benefit from a little vacation away from sharp objects. Some place padded and quiet where you would have the time to sort things out and no one other than the orderlies bringing your medication would interrupt your thoughts - such as they are.

I say this while strenuously attempting to avoid eye contact.

(Sonoma looks down at the floor while scuffing it with the toe of his shoe - glancing furtively towards the closest exit and measuring the distance.)

<hr /></blockquote>

So I am crazy for defending the constitution and the rights of others. Especially in a courtroom where it is the most important place for exercising your rights? I love my freedom, I don't like when others of power disregard it because they think they can...

S0Noma
12-19-2006, 11:14 AM
I think you're tilting at windmills, Dr. Quixote.

I's not the flag that I'm worried about so much as what the judge herself is doing. Are her hands above the desk at all times? Is she making strange noises that don't make sense in the context of what's going on in the courtroom? Keep your eye on her.

There's a reason why this can be important in some courtrooms.

The Case of the Masturbating Judge of Oklahoma (http://bubbaworld.com/thompson1.html)