Bush & the Posse Comitatus Act

[pickenup]

Bush has asked congress to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which basically prevents the military from using police powers against civilians inside the United States. (except under certain conditions. ie. the armed forces have authority to provide humanitarian relief, and to quell insurrections, as well as the authority to defend themselves if fired upon)

He first hinted of this on Sept. 15 in his televised address to the nation, using the aftermath of hurricane Katrina as an excuse to try to get this through congress.

His proposal has stirred opposition across the political spectrum, prompting BOTH conservative and liberal activists to line up AGAINST any move that would empower U.S. troops to shoot or arrest civilians in the event of national emergencies. (is there a definitive list for exactly what constitutes a national emergency? Who makes the rules here, and what are they?) MANY figures in authority, different groups, and so-called experts, have UNITED with the politicians, against this proposal. (imagine that)

So many in fact, that now Bush has changed his tactics (reason) for trying to get this through congress. NOW he says that he “might” need to call on the military to “quarantine” a given area, in case of an outbreak of the flu.

Does anyone else see the implications of completely throwing out the Posse Comitatus Act? Which could, by the way, bypass using the National Guard altogether?

I admit, I don’t have a tin foil hat (or is that aluminum foil that it is supposed to be made out of?) Anyway, gonna have to get me one of those things.

[358 winchester]

There are some scary things going on in this country! I just don't trust the folks that run our country to do what is best for us! I voted for Bush and I feel that the man has done a fair job considering all that our nation has gone through in the last few years. I am also concerned with what we will be facing the next 3 to 7 years. There are people in high government poisons that just don't care about the normal every day American citizen. We the backbone of America are being pushed aside and treated as second class or maybe third rate,Why. Because we have let them do it. It is time to say No to some of this and stand up to the folks that we elected when they do wrong. the real sad thing about it is most of our children are to busy trying to make ends meet to notice that they are loosing the rights to live a free life.
Can we continue to just ignore what is happening and hope for some one else to step forward? Will it do any good to dig a hole to hid in? what will happen when there isn't any food in the stores, because the truckers can't afford to operate? when the nurses and technicians can't afford to drive to work? when the mill worker just can't take it any longer?
I don't have the answer but I do know that every day we are closer to having some MAJOR upsets in this country and it is scary as hell.
Now I need to go buy more dried beans and reloading components before I run out of money buying Gas.
PS wanted an old 12 volt generator and a wind mill
OK I am finished but it was PICKENUP that got me started.

[1952Sniper]

This idea of using the military to quarantine areas of the country for the flu has had me very upset since yesterday when I first heard it. Picture this in your mind, if you will...

The flu has hit some countries pretty hard, especially Asian countries where people live all cramped together. Just like the SARS "epidemic" a while back. People start dying. It spreads to America with about a dozen cases reported in, say, St. Louis. The military, acting under the President, quickly isolates St. Louis. They set up an armed perimeter around the city, including machine gun nests, razor wire, and watch towers. Sounds like a concentration camp, eh? Unfortunately, you were in St. Louis at the time on business. Now you're trapped there. You're not sick. You haven't even been exposed to the same areas of the city as the people who are sick. But you're trapped anyway. Your "benevolent" government has seen to it. It's for your own good, you know. Since you don't have a home in St. Louis, you cannot isolate yourself from the rest of the city. You must find places to eat. After a short amount of time, you will be likely to become infected as well.

The Feds are treating us more and more like cattle every day. In essence, they will treat the CITIZENS of this nation the exact same way as they treat herds of cattle when a case of "mad cow disease" pops up. The next step, of course, is mass euthanization of entire cities in order to "contain" the diseases.

This is a bad precedent, folks. It's blatantly unconstitutional (not that anyone cares about that anymore) and it's bad for liberty (no one cares about that anymore either, apparently). It empowers the Federal government to contain us in "camps" at gunpoint.

The very fact that this is even being discussed in America makes me shudder. Bush has made some pretty bold steps toward tyranny, but this is over the top. History shows us that every two-bit dictator in history has started out by using his military forces to control the citizens. And Bush is now showing his true colors. He is nothing more than a wannabe dictator.

No offense to my fellow board members, but it galls me that people can still support this man. To give him any support at this point only serves to destroy what's left of our once great republic.

[Carl S]

Unlike Sniper, I don't believe Bush is a wannabe dictator. And I am firmly convinced that he is a far better choice than Kerry! Kerry was/is a traitor. That said I certainly do not agree with everything Bush has done.

I am against any tampering with the Posse Comitatus Act whatsoever. I grew knowing folks who could remember military rule in the South. We do not need to ever go there again. There already is a mechanism provided by law for the President to use Federal troops within a state to enforce law. Fortunately, by design, the law is not easy to implement because of political fallout. That makes a President wary of invoking it, which is a very good thing.

Sniper, I support Bush because he is, by far, the better man of the two candidates from which I had to chose. There was no provision on my ballot for "None of the above". Kerry and the leftist Dems and national level scare me far worse than does Bush. You asked how I can still support him; there is your answer. So far Bush has made no moves to infringe on Second Amendment rights and the few Dem attempts to do so have gone nowhere. Do you think that would be the same under (shudder) President Kerry?

[1952Sniper]

Why do you people always invoke Kerry when anyone criticizes Bush?

*bangs head against brick wall*

You DO realize there were more than two people running for President, right? Criticism of Bush does not equal support for Kerry or the Democrats. I wish I could get that through your head. That seems to be the typical Republican answer to everything, when confronted with criticism of Bush. "But Kerry would have been worse!"

How could you NOT believe Bush is a wannabe dictator? He has followed almost EXACTLY in the footsteps of such great dictators in history as Stalin, Hitler, etc. I think it's high time that Republicans around the country stopped acting like ostriches and pulled their heads out of the sand to see what's really going on here.

Does the Constitution mean nothing to you?

Sorry for the seemingly harsh responses, but geez. Our nation under Bush has made some real leaps and bounds toward tyranny of its own people. Step back and look at what Bush is doing and ask yourself if our founding fathers would have supported it. As yourself if it fits the Constitution. Ask yourself if you think liberty is best served. How can anyone look at what Bush is doing and answer yes to any of these questions? We are literally trashing America under this one President. I don't know if he's the driving force behind it or just the puppet that's carrying out someone else's agenda. But he's definitely responsible for the absolute raping of our Constitution. It's worse under him than any President I can think of, even Lincoln. I'm sitting here watching our way of life unravel, and you Republican Bush supporters are sitting there applauding.

[LIKTOSHOOT]

Far be it from me to support some of the things that have gone on, I don`t label myself as a Republican. I am a conservative and I vote on three sides of the fence. While Sniper will always take a shot at Bush given any chance to do so and claim folks are being lead blindly down a path. I submit most admit Bush isn`t the answer to all things and don`t just turn a blind eye as told. This perception follows along the bunker buddy thinking at best. Run-hide-I told you so. A few around here are free thinkers, believe it or not. And yes it does have merit when someone mentions the other choices, Gore-Kerry and what would life be like. If a Libertarian canadate could get past the drug legalization crap, he would gather my vote as many did the last time round. The two party system needs to be three party(thats how I vote) and it may happen this time around. I have slammed Bush and the NRA for years for their do nothing or give in approach and it`s always Hip_Hip-HORAY!! NRA. Now you want to talk about the blind leading the blind......NRA supporters are the #1 with Bush blinding #2.

So are you the only one that says I told you so(Sniper) I hardly think so and if you do, it is the height of arrogance.


LTS

[Carl S]

Originally Posted by 1952Sniper

Why do you people always invoke Kerry when anyone criticizes Bush?

You DO realize there were more than two people running for President, right? Criticism of Bush does not equal support for Kerry or the Democrats. I wish I could get that through your head. That seems to be the typical Republican answer to everything, when confronted with criticism of Bush. "But Kerry would have been worse!"

Sniper, for all intents and purposes there were only two candidates running. I voted against Kerry. I was not going to throw my vote away on a third party candidate when there was such a marked difference between Bush and the Soros endorsed Kerry. Had a number of us voted Libertarian, it would be President Kerry today. You seem to fail to understand that.

How could you NOT believe Bush is a wannabe dictator? He has followed almost EXACTLY in the footsteps of such great dictators in history as Stalin, Hitler, etc. I think it's high time that Republicans around the country stopped acting like ostriches and pulled their heads out of the sand to see what's really going on here.

Following in the footsteps of Stalin and Hitler is a gross exaggeration, not consistant with history, and made out of pure emotion; and I'm sure you realize that. For the record, I am not a Republican. I am an independent and a strict constitutional constructionist. The alternative was Kerry. Would you rather see Kerry make two appointments to the Supreme Court and fill several lower federal court vacancies? That is the alternative. It is you that needs to pull your head of the sand and realize that this is a system stacked in favor of the two party system. One can cut off one's nose to spite one's face. A third party can, a best, swing an election and that's about it.

Does the Constitution mean nothing to you?

Indeed it does. Please see my response above.

Sorry for the seemingly harsh responses, but geez. Our nation under Bush has made some real leaps and bounds toward tyranny of its own people. Step back and look at what Bush is doing and ask yourself if our founding fathers would have supported it. As yourself if it fits the Constitution. Ask yourself if you think liberty is best served. How can anyone look at what Bush is doing and answer yes to any of these questions? We are literally trashing America under this one President. I don't know if he's the driving force behind it or just the puppet that's carrying out someone else's agenda. But he's definitely responsible for the absolute raping of our Constitution. It's worse under him than any President I can think of, even Lincoln. I'm sitting here watching our way of life unravel, and you Republican Bush supporters are sitting there applauding.

My response was pretty harsh also and it is because both of us feel very strongly about the direction the nation is headed. And both of us see that direction in the same light. We differ as to the solution to the problem. In reality, the nation has been heading toward socialism and tyranny since FDR became president. Talk about tyranny, look at the powers FDR had under the War Powers Act. The Partiot Act is mild compared to the War Powers Act. No, I do not like the Patriot Act either. The country is no worse under Bush than under the Clinton administration. The problem for me is that it is not much better either.

[berto64]

If we as citizens allow any changes or repeal of Posse Comitatus, we are throwing our liberty down the tubes.

The US will be no different than any third world country with soldiers with automatic weapons patrolling the streets and it WILL be Martial Law Nationwide in no time.

Notify your senators and representatives to put a halt to this happy horse $hit.

And sniper, just for your benefit.............It would have already been tried if SKERRY had won!

[Huck Finn]

It's funny how republicans have an amazing ability to see the future and to know exactly what would have happened had John Kerry won. But yet they couldn't see the Patriot Act, or Bush promising to sign the AWB extention or now this coming! The people surrounding Bush have gotten very good at deflecting the attention off of GW every time something comes up. Speaking of traitors, has anyone even heard Karl Rove's name lately???? I'm with Sniper on this one. "It would be worse if Kerry was elected" is not an answer.... It's a cop out!

[JohnK3]

No more than Democrats claiming to see the future when they claim that if this Republican or that Republican is elected, various dire and horrid events will occur, mostly revolving around racism and fascism, the two favorite tropes of the Democratic Left.

IE: All conservatives are fascists (when fascisim and Nazism were more Socialist in character than American Conservative) and all Republicans are racist (when it was Democrats who, over the course of history, have done more to propagate and promulgate racist laws and regulations than Republicans)

Face it, there are wild claims made by all politicians. The Patriot Act was voted for by a huge group of Democrats as well as Republicans. If a Democratic president was in power, I doubt very seriously that the Patriot Act would be repealed on that basis alone. Even if there was a Democratic Congress. The Patriot Act is favored by POLITICIANS. Why? Because it allows them to rule over those whom they see as their inferiors, ie: We the People.

Want to see more Libertarian candidates actually win elections? Drop the whole "Legalize Drugs" plank in their platform. Instead, replace it with "Education on the dangers of drugs is more cost-effective than a War on Drugs" plank. In other words, most people can point out how drugs are dangerous and harmful, so they won't go for legalization. Tell them they can reduce the dangers and harm by spending the money more wisely and they just might pay attention. Until then, a vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate is a vote for the Democratic candidate.

Heck, we're still paying for the Spanish American War every time we use the phone.

[glocknut]

All i know is that I'm gonna buy up as much as i can and get ready to die on my feet....

I've about had it with voting. Choosing between a mohawk or a pixie cut is not what i had in mind !!! Neither party is worth a sh*t...never will be either. At the end of the day human nature always kicks in and messes things up.

mike
gn

[Ruger.44]

I'm with mike. Don't trust a damn one of them. Fact is, I voted for Bush. I found it to be one of those "Devil-you-know" kinda deals. I was afraid of Kerry and simply lack confidence in GWB.

That having been said, Posse Comitatus will not be repealed. The basic idea is rediculous only because the government is already authorized to use the Guard in this capacity. 319,000 Guardsmen is a formitable number. If there was ever a "need" for more than that, I would hope someone would stand up and say "These people must have a reasonable complaint". If GWB wants to try this as a emergency refief type of thing, nail him to the wall. He can use the military ANYWHERE he wants for humanitarian purposes, just not for enforcement.

I don't think it's going to get far anyway. Just keep your eye on the top and be prepared.

Jim

[1952Sniper]

I really don't mean to hijack the thread to the topic of drugs, but I have to address this:

Want to see more Libertarian candidates actually win elections? Drop the whole "Legalize Drugs" plank in their platform. Instead, replace it with "Education on the dangers of drugs is more cost-effective than a War on Drugs" plank. In other words, most people can point out how drugs are dangerous and harmful, so they won't go for legalization. Tell them they can reduce the dangers and harm by spending the money more wisely and they just might pay attention.

The Libertarian Party's stance on drugs is not just "legalize them and hope the problem goes away". The only reason people think that, is because Republicans and Democrats keep spouting that BS about the Libertarian Party. It's another classic example of fear tactics and propaganda by the two parties who have the most to lose from seeing a party rise to the forefront that actually respects the Constitution. Here is what the Libertarian Party has to say about drugs:

The War on Drugs
The Issue: The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world.

The Principle: Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others' rights.

Solutions: Social involvement by individuals is essential to address the problem of substance misuse and abuse. Popular education and assistance groups are a better approach than prohibition, and we support the activities of private organizations as the best way to move forward on the issue.

Transitional Action: Repeal all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs. Repeal laws that infringe upon individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property as protected by the Fourth Amendment. Stop the use of "anti-crime" measures such as profiling or civil asset forfeiture that reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions. Stop prosecuting accused non-violent drug offenders, and pardon those previously convicted.

So they've already addressed your point. But you are absolutely correct on one thing you said: the American people as a whole don't want drugs legalized. They are comfortable with their government curtailing their liberties. People are sheep and they like being controlled. Americans as a whole do not respect the ideals of liberty, and our current laws reflect that. Until that changes, America will keep sliding down the slippery slope to tyranny. They will keep voting in Democrats and Republicans, both of which are liberal parties bent on total domination and control. If it weren't such a dire situation, it would be comical to see the sheeple of America quibbling over which major party is "right" or "wrong". They're both wrong! There is almost no difference in the parties anymore! They are both screwing us. All this BS about Republicans vs. Democrats is like debating whether you'd rather be mauled by a bear or a buffalo. In the end, it doesn't matter. Both major parties mean disaster for us. Both parties are leading us to the end of what we knew as our Constitutional Republic. I daresay we're already past that point. We're on a train at high speed, headed for the cliff edge, and America is only concerned with which flavor of tea to drink.

I've seen a lot of people on this board lately who are starting to be uneasy with the things Bush is doing. The Patriot Act. Homeland Security. The REAL ID Act. Revoking Posse Comitatus. Refusing to secure our borders while clamping down in internal travel. How many signs do you need? Carl S, you said, "Following in the footsteps of Stalin and Hitler is a gross exaggeration, not consistant with history, and made out of pure emotion; and I'm sure you realize that." I most certainly DO believe that Bush is following in the footsteps of Hitler and Stalin. The proof is in the pudding, and you're simply refusing to acknowledge it. Just as I'm sure the Germans and Russians did at the time. There is a human desire to disbelieve what's actually happening around you when the signs are grim. But what is it going to take to wake America up and realize that we are turning into the exact kind of nation that we hate? We may have won the Cold War but we have become the enemy!

Is it going to take armed soldiers on every street corner before you guys believe? Concentration camps? What will it take? They say that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. And that's exactly what we're doing. Wake up, America!

[JohnK3]

I'm very aware of the Libertarian Party's official viewpoint on drugs. You just confirmed what I said. It's the "repeal anti-drug laws" position. The education and assistance groups portion is buried in the rest of the platform.

Libertarians, themselves, keep the perception alive more than Republicans or Democrats. Talk to a Libertarian and you will most likely get them repeating the same paragraph, word-for-word that you just gave us. It's an extremist viewpoint and extremist viewpoints don't win elections. Just ask Howard Dean.

Win the war a step at a time, rather than by insisting upon an immediate change in the drug laws. Get a candidate that drops the LOSING rhetoric of drug legalization and instead talks about shifting money away from enforcement and towards education. That way, you use incrementalism to get to the ultimate goal.

The perception that most people have of Libertarians isn't formed by what a Republican or a Democrat told them. It's from meeting a Libertarian who looks and sounds like someone who mainly wants their party to win so they can go take drugs without getting arrested. (BTW: I'm neither Rep. or Dem. As a matter of fact, I vote Libertarian where I can. Just not for President.) Instead of doing something about the poor image, many Libertarians sit there and whine about how they're being portrayed by the nasty ol' two-party system. Until the party figures out the perception issue and starts marketing itself better to the public, they'll keep losing elections.

[1952Sniper]

It's an extremist viewpoint and extremist viewpoints don't win elections.

So you consider it "extremist" to demand liberty and to demand that our government repeal unconstitutional laws?

No wonder our country is going down the toilet.

Like I said, and you have just proven my point: Americans are sheep. They like being controlled by government, even with unconstitutional laws. Americans are frightened of real liberty. That disgusts me.

[pickenup]

Why is it that people say, “This is a party that I could vote for.” but then pick out ONE issue with that party, to use as an excuse, not to vote for them? I can make a LONG list of issues that I don’t agree with, that have been PROVEN with actions, concerning BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans.

Why is it that people overlook REPEATED attacks on our constitutional rights, but can’t overlook ONE issue that they don’t agree with? Especially when they say that most of the rest of the platform is a LOT closer to what they could agree with?

I don’t get it.

[Ruger.44]

"SCHRT... Tower, This is TFF1, I believe we have a hijacking... SCHRT, over"

Cummon guys, Drugs, no drugs... The point is well taken. As a constitutionalist/libertarian type independent, I must admit that every Green or Libertarian that I've ever seen circulating petitions looked like they were marking time waiting for their next joint. Not to say that that represents every Green or Libertarian, just what I've seen.

ANYWAY,

I think Sniper is very close to being absolutely correct. You can't trust any of them. Period. I do disagree with Bush/Hitler/Stalin analogy. What makes our system different is that Bush will be gone in 3 years. WE can't have dictators because of term limits. And I refuse to accept that GWB is some all powerful entity that operates outside the realm of this dimension, with the ability to control every aspect of everything in the entire universe. He's just a guy, and just as much a puppet of his party as any of them. THEY are the Borg. He can't operate without the approval of his people, just like they can't shove legislation down his throat because he has the ultimate power to veto whatever he wants.
The real problem, as has been pointed out, is that Republicrats and Democans have the same goals in mind; making the people serve them. Every step that one party makes toward dominating the people is a step that the other will take advantage of when they get into power.

I've said this before and I stand by it, as a nation, we are complacent cattle. This includes many members of this forum. If that offends you, it most likely applies to you. As I posted in the thread regarding Imminent Domain Ruling:

Each of us have to ask ourselves , when will I stand up?

If you think it's going to be when they come for your guns, be prepared to die because by that time, they'll have repealed enough of the constitution that it won't be the police coming, they'll send the military. I know my brothers won't bear arms against their country-men but, liberal schools are indoctrinating our children every day, who knows what they next generation will do.

I stand behind this and appeal to all of you to take this seriously. As I mentioned before, I don't think this will go through. I do think that they are testing the waters and will, at some point, find a way to get away with this.

"SUA SPONTE"

Jim

[tuckerd1]

Originally Posted by Ruger.44

What makes our system different is that Bush will be gone in 3 years. WE can't have dictators because of term limits.

Until that law is repealed.

[JohnK3]

Originally Posted by 1952Sniper

So you consider it "extremist" to demand liberty and to demand that our government repeal unconstitutional laws?

No wonder our country is going down the toilet.

Like I said, and you have just proven my point: Americans are sheep. They like being controlled by government, even with unconstitutional laws. Americans are frightened of real liberty. That disgusts me.

No, but the majority of Americans, who have, since childhood, been taught that drugs=bad, consider it an extremist viewpoint to legalize what they "know" is bad. Therefore, what I consider "extremist" is the demand to change everything overnight, in one fell swoop without considering the Law of Unintended Consequences nor how we got to this situation in the first place.

You can talk about "sheeple" all you want. It still loses elections. It's an elitist attitude that makes people think that you're a moron because you seem to think you're "smarter" or "better" than they are, which they won't admit, even if it's true. You still miss the point, though:

No matter how "smart" or "right" you are, you'll still lose if you can't figure out a way to get the majority of people behind you. You'll continue to lose as long as you treat people as if they're stupid sheep. You'll still fail to get anywhere near what you want if you're not willing to do what it takes to win.

It's called being a realist. Obviously, for all your claims otherwise, you can't seem to get to the reality of the situation. You're right, Bush has done a lot of things just plain WRONG. When is the Libertarian Party going to step up to the plate and offer something better without the same tired old losing planks that they've been trotting out for years? It's similar to the Left's methodology: If something doesn't work, keep trying the same thing over and over again.

Sniper, I respect your opinion and agree with you on the salient facts of the situation. The War on Drugs is illegal, unconstitutional and is, in fact, more of the problem and less of the solution. However, I also realize that to say that to the majority of people who might otherwise vote Libertarian is to ignore the reality of the electorate and provides a convenient "excuse" to keep losing elections. "We can't win because the people are sheeple!" is a pitiful excuse for otherwise intelligent people to use for losing an election. I'm not talking about whether or not you're right about drugs, I'm talking about whether or not the Libertarian position on drugs is winning or losing elections. It's LOSING them elections. I'm also not talking about changing the ultimate goal. I'm talking about changing the tactics of how to reach the goal.

Please, tell me, Sniper, how is it "smart" and "intelligent" and "right" to not use the power of incrementalism to attain your goal when the "demand" method isn't working?

Whatever. It would appear, from your arguments, that as a group, the Libertarian Party likes beating its collective heads against the wall. Have fun with that.

[LIKTOSHOOT]

Lets visit the countries that have legalized drugs or safe zones for drugs/users. Not one of them has worked, but all have taken a toll on the tax payers roll of support. That is a fact!! It has created a burden on non-users that is driving them to the poor house and these are all small countries. So simply based on a small percentage of our large populas it would destroy us quite quickly. Not one country has improved from doing this-not one!. Oh sure, we know more and how to handle it better. GIVE ME A KING SIZED BREAK!! If the USA wanted to truely get rid of drugs, it could do so in months, but I`d rather smoke a joint and think about it some more---right?? Cool man...................



LTS

[ibtrukn]

yo dude toke up da werldsa grate place

[1952Sniper]

Originally Posted by tuckerd1

Until that law is repealed.

Exactly. And the Republican Party has already sent out "feelers" for repealing this particular amendment. The very fact that the Republican Party would even talk about it scares the bejeezus out of me.

I imagine what will happen is that when it gets close to the end of Bush's second term, we'll have another "terrorist attack" or some sort of national disaster that requires him to suspend the Constitution and delay elections. In fact, I'd almost guarantee it. Especially if there's not a Republican shoe-in to replace him.

Please, tell me, Sniper, how is it "smart" and "intelligent" and "right" to not use the power of incrementalism to attain your goal when the "demand" method isn't working?

Incrementalism means betraying one's principles for the short term. I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, but I personally wouldn't want to betray my own convictions just for political gain. It's just like the gun control debates we've had on this board. A while back, Congress passed a national concealed carry bill for police officers. Any cop can carry concealed anywhere in the nation. That pissed me off. I saw it as a way of affording special rights to some citizens but not others. Folks here tried to convince me that it was the "incrementalist approach" to getting a national concealed carry bill for everyone. Well... where is it? I haven't heard anything about national concealed carry for the rest of us. The cops got what they want, and they've stopped pushing for it. The rest of us lost out.

My point is, when one takes incrementalist measures, one is forced to do things half-a$$ed. Or temporarily shove their principles to the back burner. I don't like that, and I wouldn't respect a political party that played such games. For me, it's all or nothing. I am not going to be sucked into political games to try to schmooze people into coming to the Libertarian way of thinking. Either people respect the notions of liberty or they don't. At least I know which ones are which. It may not be the way to win elections, but I don't see sacrificing principles as honorable. Once a political party starts using subterfuge to win elections, it's downhill from there.

Lets visit the countries that have legalized drugs or safe zones for drugs/users. Not one of them has worked, but all have taken a toll on the tax payers roll of support. That is a fact!!

Um, I think you probably need to check your "facts". Of course, it depends on your source. And I highly doubt there is a purely objective source out there that reports such things. But it doesn't really matter. You're using an argument about "soving problems". I don't care about that. What I care about is the fact that our government is acting way out of their Constitutional scope of authority. If there's a problem that needs solving, they need to find a way to solve it within those bounds. But right now it sounds like you're making excuses for unconstitutional laws. Which, I might add, is exactly what the anti-gun people do as well.

[pickenup]

(continue highjack)
Whether the Libertarian party were to change their stance on the drug issue or not. (Like the democrats and republicans do on certain issues, when they see their stand is not popular?) Even IF they were to win the presidential seat, there would be no noticeable change.

AS IT STANDS, the president does not have enough power all by himself, to change most of the issues we are concerned with. He would have to have a majority of the congress as well as the senate, filled with like minded people, to accomplish ANYTHING. He would be stonewalled, in any attempt to actually bring about changes they subscribe to, on any given issues. (ask Jessie Ventura)

It would take years if not decades to win back, even a small part, of what we have ALREADY lost. With no term limits in place, on most political seats, do you think the present parties are going to go quietly into the night? Not likely. They will fight tooth and nail to keep what they have ALREADY stolen from us. And they want even MORE? The future is dim.
(end highjack)

Now, as for Bush, and the Posse Comitatus Act. There are laws in place, that he “could” use, to NOT be ousted in 2008. NOT saying that he would (but not putting it past “them” either) if a disaster (natural or “OTHERWISE” possibly intentionally manufactured?) would befall this nation, couldn’t he declare a state of emergency, thereby preventing the next election from taking place? With the military standing behind him, who he could now LEGALLY call upon AGAINST CIVILIANS, would there be any power that would be able to oppose his actions?

We are on a train, there is a cliff, and there are NO brakes.
It’s too late.

[LIKTOSHOOT]

Well, cancel the election......seems to me this was visited during the last election.....if we have another 9-11 he may just cancel the elections. I know I`m not the only one who remembers that. It`s scarey times for sure. While I do agree with Sniper.......The fact that "anyone" ever attempted to undue the Comitatus Act is about as scarey as it can get, the other scarey thing is the majority just sat on their collective hands---no big deal. That is what this is all about, being complacent. Maybe they`ll get it done when they try this bird flu thing and scare people, like West Nile and all the others---lets scare them and remove some rights for they`re own good. Good way to collect some guns as shown done in New Orleans. If you ain`t digging a hole, at least buy a shovel. Never know when you might need it.



LTS

[1952Sniper]

AS IT STANDS, the president does not have enough power all by himself, to change most of the issues we are concerned with. He would have to have a majority of the congress as well as the senate, filled with like minded people, to accomplish ANYTHING. He would be stonewalled, in any attempt to actually bring about changes they subscribe to, on any given issues. (ask Jessie Ventura)

I would settle for that in the drop of a hat. Nothing would please me more than to see our government mired down by constant arguing and inability to do anything. At least then I'd know that my liberties are safe for one more day.

In other words, if I can't reverse the process of them stealing my liberties, I'd settle for at least stopping it in its tracks. That was one of the (few) blessings of the Clinton years. He was at odds with Congress and so it was very difficult to get anything done. Remember how many times our government was almost "shut down" due to their inability to agree on the budget?

Part of the problem right now is that Republicans control the House, Senate, and Presidency. And their ilk will soon (if not already does) control the Judiciary as well. It is a VERY dangerous thing when they can ramrod legislation through with no real opposition. That's why we've seen such bold steps lately against liberty. There is no resistance in Congress. And we're all suffering for it.

Yes, I'd settle for a government that's seized up by political infighting. It's the safest thing I can think of, in terms of realistic ways to slow down this train that's headed for the cliff.