Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Could this really happen?

daveinspain

By daveinspain
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

Gitfidl

Gitfidl

Posted
Posted

Well DHS defines you as an enemy of the state (the U.S.) if (a) you are a Christian (defined as "right wing" terrorists), (:-({|= a veteran (you have combat experience -- no ****- where'd I get it?), © believe in pro-life, (d) own a gun or believe you should be able to, (e) believe in states-rights or the 2nd ammendment (f ) belong to a variety of associations (VFW, NRA, American Legion .. others). So Big Brother is watching all of them! And they *****ed about Bush tapping phones. Hahaha .. that's change! That's change. (more coming)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSG_Standard

KSG_Standard

Posted
Posted

Bush violated the non-existant constitutional "rights" of foriegn nationals, by listening in to some conversations of said foriegn nationals calling into and sometimes out of the US to other countries. Bush also violated the non-existant constitutional and geneva convention rights of "unlawful enemy combatents" by denying them habeous corpus rights in some cases. This practise took place in the past under Lincoln, during the civil war, Grant, post civil war in his attempt to eradicate the KKK, Woodrow Wilson during WWI, FDR during WWII, Truman during WWII and Korea, LBJ and Nixon during Vietnam and even to some extent by Clinton immediately after the OK City bombing. Don't believe it? Look it up.

 

Obama's justice department, under Eric Holder is in the process of defending Bush's eavesdropping program against several lawsuits and fighting to keep the program in place and secret. Is Obama shredding the constitution too? He's doing the same thing as Bush...he still hasn't closed quantanamo nor has he stopped the process of rendition. All of these things were illegal when Bush did them.

 

As for Martial Law in the future...who knows. It becomes a lot more plausible the more we let the federal government grow in power, strength and size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeoConMan

NeoConMan

Posted
Posted

What do Osama & Obama have in common?

They BOTH have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

 

 

Obama STARTED his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers.

 

This is about as white-washed and sanitized as it gets for Ayers, the truth is actually much less flattering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

 

1ayflag1.jpg

 

 

 

 

The Good Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a Christian - anybody investigating HIM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gitfidl

Gitfidl

Posted
Posted
Bush violated the non-existant constitutional "rights" of foriegn nationals' date=' by listening in to some conversations of said foriegn nationals calling into and sometimes out of the US to other countries. Bush also violated the non-existant constitutional and geneva convention rights of "unlawful enemy combatents" by denying them habeous corpus rights in some cases. This practise took place in the past under Lincoln, during the civil war, Grant, post civil war in his attempt to eradicate the KKK, Woodrow Wilson during WWI, FDR during WWII, Truman during WWII and Korea, LBJ and Nixon during Vietnam and even to some extent by Clinton immediately after the OK City bombing. Don't believe it? Look it up.

 

Obama's justice department, under Eric Holder is in the process of defending Bush's eavesdropping program against several lawsuits and fighting to keep the program in place and secret. Is Obama shredding the constitution too? He's doing the same thing as Bush...he still hasn't closed quantanamo nor has he stopped the process of rendition. All of these things were illegal when Bush did them.

 

As for Martial Law in the future...who knows. It becomes a lot more plausible the more we let the federal government grow in power, strength and size.[/quote']

 

 

Accurate. Interesting how we can advance our knowledge when we are literate (able to understand what we read and integrate it). It is a skill that so many have avoided acquiring.

 

Yes Habeas Corpus is an "extraordionary writ" together with "Mandamus" and "Quo Warranto" and they are employed by attorneys to make the government obey the Constitution... but suppose there IS no Constituion .. and suppose the country the detainees are from has no Bill of Rights? and Suppose the Geneva convention has no Bill of Rights. Then writs don't mean squat -- which is why they were never filed. (excellent post KSG_Standard)

 

And warring countries are supposed to take prisoners (and not execute them in the field). Nobody ever proved (gave evidence) that anyone was torturedat Gitmo. (different in the Abu Graibe case). Nobody ever provde that any human rights were violated (and as you say -- there was no applicable Constitution)

 

But now we have Obama violating the US Constituion regarding the rights of U.S. citizens but he is a lawyer and he knows he can do it (even if unlawful and unethical) until a court orders him to stop (did he ever say he was ethical -- or lawful?). Marshal law? Well the rhetoric the past few days has been extemely repressive. And not one word from the liberals and not one word from the mainstream media. Their previous ire was merely an act.

 

The same liberals have said NOTHING about Gitmo being closed, or about detainees. The same liberals and media are incredibly silent about Iraq and Afghanistan. Not much being said about Mexico. Nothing being said about "the border." The liberals are silent now. They don't care WHAT is being done.

 

Interesting indeed how the liberals who decry the slightest encroachment of their rights now turn a blind eye to gross violations of the same principles, laws and Constituion tney used to wave at eveyone. Now they have the power and they intend to repress. They intent to impose. They intend to dictate. CHANGE! Change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...