Good Morning. Bush is now the King. We are all either his loyal subjects or enemies of the state.
By decree, he claimed another power yesterday that renders Congress even more irrelevant than they have rendered themselves over the past six years.
Kavips blogs the most recent Executive Order which could only have been written by a king.
Just remember that for every time you say something like this and the cops don’t bust down your door, you’re disproving your own point.
Ry,
It’s not a matter of the cops busting down the door. It’s intimidation. It’s one more attempt to stifle dissent. Something else to hide behind. It’s one more victory for Bin Laden in the march toward destroying our nation.
I will not be silenced. Bush is destroying America and eveything she has stood for.
Ryan –
I have you marked down as “loyal subject.”
Thanks!
this blog rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Becky,
It’s intimidation. It’s one more attempt to stifle dissent.
You feel intimidated? I don’t see your dissent being stifled right now…
I will not be silenced.
Who is silencing you?
Jason, the burden on is on you to prove that our civil liberties are actively being infringed on.
Ryan, Read the fucking Executive Order.
The burden of proof is now on you to prove you are not a moron.
Jason,
First, the burden of proof is always on the affirmative. You can’t prove a negative. Technically, the burden of proof is still on you to prove I am a moron.
Second, I have now read the Executive Order 5 or 6 times.
Why are you so worried?
Have you “committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people”? Or otherwise provided material aid to those who have?
Well, you failed to prove that you are not a moron, so I doubt you’ll grasp this, but here it goes.
That order allows the President to confiscate the property of, and throw in jail, any US citizens accused of a certian crime without the benefit of a trial or even having the luxury standing accused infront of a judge.
Imagine Hilary Clinton had that power?
Does that sound like it is in keeping with American history and traditions to you?
Does it sound like the America you learned about in history class?
The order is rather broad. What constitutes at threat or under-mindedness???
If a congressman says “get the fuck out of Iraq now and cut off all funding”, does that equal:
A) Threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) Undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people”?
The argument can certainly be made for the affirmative. And if you don’t think so, then there’s an ostrich I want you to mate with….
Well put VC.
Ryan uses selective quoting to highlight the “an act or acts of violence” passage. In fact the order applies to anyone who HELPS people who engage on acts of violence.
I can’t count the times I’ve heard wingnuts accuse me of “helping” terrorists with my pitiful and practically meaningless criticism of Bush and his vanity war.
Quick reply to Ryan: comment 7
“An act, or acts of violence” Ryan reads this to mean the following: “an act of violence, or acts of violence” meaning of course that this executive order is intended to curb violence.
But as any first year law student will tell you….that is not what it says…. It says “an act” OR…..MEANING THE WORD “ACT” STANDS ON ITS OWN….. So if one rereads the line with the work “act” standing alone…..
Have you “committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act that has the purpose or effect of (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people”? Or otherwise provided material aid to those who have?
Some of my posts could be considered to undermine Dick Cheney’s plan for economic reconstruction, especially if they were successful in stifling Cheney’s grab for Big Oil by pointing public scrutiny to his hand in the Big Oil cookie jar……therefore I have some worries….as well as should many of you. Even you Ryan, have responded to Jason with a couple of comments that say you do not fully support the Iraq War. Should you ever be hauled off to the Gestapo, you too would have some serious dancing to do……
Anyone contributing to any political candidates who does not wave the war effort flag, is, by this executive order, eligible to have their fund frozen without warning or oversight…….
Not worried?
Some of the best legal minds work for the White House legal team. To assume that this first year law mistake was not left intentionally in order to open the the possibility that “any act” can lead to frozen assets, is making a mistake.
If they wanted, they could have fixed it with “any act of violence or acts of violence”.
But for some reason, they didn’t………..
Don’t even try to say they are stupid….
GOOD NEWS
John Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I’ll Impeach
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/24962