Additional Titles

KING GEORGE CREATING EAST-BLOCK AMERIKA

By Chuck Baldwin
July 19, 2002
NewsWithViews.com
It should be obvious to everyone by now that, wittingly or not, George W. Bush is in the process of creating a communist-style form of government in the United States. As details emerge regarding his new Department of Homeland Security, we discover that Bush and his band of belligerent brothers have begun the process of turning the federal government into a gargantuan police state not seen since Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's Soviet Union.

According to press reports, Bush plans to do the following:

1. Merge 22 federal police and emergency agencies into his new Department of Homeland Security. (Say hello to the new SS Corps.)

2. Create standardized biometric travel documents ("Show me your papers or your iris. Sieg Heil.")

3. Develop "screening tools to predict human behavior, such as 'hostile intent.'" (Hello Dept. of Pre-Crimes.)

4. Allow federal police to search and seize at will. (Goodbye 4th Amendment.)

5. Allow federal police to incarcerate and indefinitely hold suspects without arrest or warrant and with no legal recourse by the person seized. (Goodbye 5th Amendment. Hello Gestapo.)

6. Implement a national driver's license. (Hello National ID.)

7. Allow the U.S. military to conduct lethal operations on U.S. soil. (Goodbye Posse Comitatus.)

8. Allow the President to unilaterally procure taxpayer dollars without the consent of Congress. (Goodbye U.S. Constitution.)

9. Allow the federal government to act in secret. (Hello East German Secret Police, Stasi. Goodbye Freedom of Information Act.)

10. Create a "Domestic Informant" program whereby millions of Americans are authorized to spy on their fellow citizens on behalf of the federal government. (Hello Communist Amerika.)

According to the Sydney Morning Herald and other news outlets, Bush plans to enlist 1 in 24 Americans into a new citizen-spy department. This number dwarfs the number of citizen spies used by former East-Bloc countries.

The Justice Department is scheduled to launch a pilot program next month in 10 cities using 1 million informants. The SMH rightly stated, "Historically, informant systems have been the tools of non- democratic states." It would seem that a "non-democratic" state is exactly what Bush is creating.

In Nazi Germany, churches, pastors, and conservatives assisted the creation of tyrannical government. That is exactly what is happening right now in the United States. What we thought we needed to fear from liberals, we find being championed by conservatives.

Right now, George Bush and his fellow travelers compose the greatest threat to freedom and constitutional government that exists. Instead of fighting terrorism, they are actually destroying the very principles of liberty that they claim to be protecting.

America survived the attacks on September 11. It may not survive the Bush administration.

 

That we return completly and entirely to the word of the Constitution, and the principles espoused by our founders. Especially Washingtons advice on "foreign entanglements".

It doesn't get any more [b]specific[/b] than what I stated. What is it about a simple statement you don't understand??

In order to do what you propose, many little despots on the Hill would have to relinquish power, and we all know that's not going to happen.  Can you show me a way this happens in a peaceful, ordered manner?

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Please refer to the "principles" part of my post....If you guys haven't read much of the writings of the time, now would be a good time to start.

I keep a copy of the Federalist Papers by my bedside near my Bible.  In order to operate as the Founding Fathers intended, where there was relatively little power accorded to the Federal Government, would require downsizing it.  And that isn't going to happen.  No Hill power player is going to give up his little kingdom in the system, regardless of whether he's liberal or conservative.  Well, at least not peacably, and I believe anyone who thinks that unorganized militia types could stand a chance against the US Military is either insane, drunk, or deluding themselves.  It would take a literal miracle.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

And how much bandwidth do you think that would take raf?? Stop being a gameplayer, feigning ignorance. You know exactly what I mean....

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our country men." Samual Adams

Washington's advice about foreign relations is but one veiw held by the founding fathers; I'm sure someone can drag up a buzzword quote about how we should "entagle" ourselves.

You may want to add a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross to your bedside table. Being as how you brought the Bible, try this; [url]http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/founding.html#sa[/url]
The last two sentences of your post are absoulutly correct. The question is, do you believe??

Why don't you do just that.....

These proposals trouble me as well. I think the problem is when they are in place for the next Klinton. Why can't we get over this PC BS and look to the source of the problem, muslims in our country? If they are citizens in good standing, fine, but quit letting them in the country!!! Obviously, the perps of 9-11 were all allowed in for no good reason. Round em up and get em out! Oh, and leave us red blooded Americans alone! Quit strip searching little old ladies at the airport while arabs walk by unmolested. We're to stupid for our own good! If these measures are put into place, the tangos have won without even a fight. Sad that some can't see it. One more time, QUIT LETTING THEM IN!!! SEARCH THEIR SHIPS AT SEA BEFORE THEY PORT!!!

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of ... your peace abroad; of your safety..."

Seems to bolster my points. Talks about the unity of OUR govt. not world govt. Who said it, and when???

The next Klinton?? He's already here!!

[b]Bush Continues Clinton Agenda
By Chuck Baldwin
June 21, 2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referring to President G. W. Bush's new Homeland Security department, former President Bill Clinton told a gathering of Council on Foreign Relations members last week, "We have been building this for a long time." For once, Clinton told the truth. What he began constructing following the Oklahoma City bombing, Bush has succeeded in bringing to fruition. America is about to have its very own Gestapo.
If Al Gore were president today, Republicans in Congress would no doubt rise in righteous indignation to quickly kill such a plan. However, with a fellow Republican in the White House, all such opposition has vanished. The bottom line is Bush is pursuing Clinton's agenda and getting a free pass.

Consider this: Bush has already issued 57 executive orders and has already created 47 new federal agencies. His Justice Department has declared that U.S. citizens, whom it declares to be "Enemy Combatants," have no constitutional rights - none. Such people do not even have the fundamental right of legal representation.

Georgetown University law professor David Cole rightly said, "This is really an astounding assertion of authority. It's not just that you have no right to a lawyer, it's that you have no right to even have a hearing. If this is true, then there is really no limit to the President's power to label U.S. citizens as bad people and then have them held in military custody indefinitely."

Furthermore, Bush now says he has the right to initiate first strike attacks on any nation or people at (his) will. Imagine how future history will record America launching its own versions of Pearl Harbor.

Bill Clinton received more good news from the Bush White House. Just yesterday, he learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft is ready to permanently close the government's investigations into Clinton's criminal activities. In other words, President Bush has declared that Bill and Hillary Clinton are above the law.

Beyond that, Bush's support for liberal policies on things such as the federalization of airport security, proposed amnesty for illegal aliens, a boost in funding for Clinton's AmeriCorps program, a worst-ever education bill, and a constitutionally-challenged campaign finance reform bill simply reveal Bush's perpetual propensity to continue Clinton-style government.

In spite of Bush's dismal record, he continues to receive the support and approbation of conservatives, pastors, and Republicans throughout the country. If Clinton would have known that a Bush administration would be this successful in promoting his policies and programs, he would have supported Bush and not Gore in the 2000 election. Maybe he did.[/b]
[url]http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush21jun02.html[/url]

Holy smokes guys ! Wouldn't it just be easier to convince Congress & Bush that we don't need any of this crap ? Instead we should just NUKE THE FUCK OUT OF THE SHITHOLE KNOWN AS THE MIDDLE EAST !

GWB runs on "smaller gov't"

GWB gets elected on "smaller gov't"

GWB leads biggest explosion in gov't power since FDR

I'm expected to vote for him again so the demos lose......



I just don't understand politics [whacko]

Liberty, my point is we need to quit focusing on people who aren't the problem, Americans. Our freedoms are going down the toilet and the tangos are, no doubt, happy about it. We need to get over our PC mindset and get to the root of this problem. We should have never changed a thing about our lifestyle. Instead, we should have NUKED the top 6 capitols of terror supporting arab countries on 9-12-01!!!!! I think they would have been impressed more by that response.

And my point is that foreign terrorists are not the real target of our govt.......Guess who is.

I know. We agree on alot. It's a sad state of affairs. Hopefully opposition will form from all corners (left and right) of our society to stop this before it happens. I shudder to think what freedoms we would lose if another attack takes place.

Liberty86, you sure your name aint Duke Nuke'Em.

You wrote:

"Instead, we should have NUKED the top 6 capitols of terror supporting arab countries on 9-12-01!!!!! I think they would have been impressed more by that response"

    Well this would be an interesting idea but that would be taking out aggression upon innocents and non-combatants and make us worse than the 'Sand People'.  Curious though, what top 6 capitols do you you refer to:  Tripoli, Kabul, Ryadh, Baghdad, and of course Tel Aviv right.  After all Israel is waist deep in complicity and foreknowledge of 9/11, and had hundreds of its operative picked up by the Feds after 9/11.  Did you know even Mexico picked up a bunch.  

    The reason I defend the 'Sand People' is, when I hear you characters throw the blame around, and be entirely unfair, you make me so sick I try to defend the undefendable.  

    And yes, Baldwin is right, it is only a matter of time when we start going into camps, 'for our own safety'  etc.  In a way, history unfolds before us.  THIS IS HISTORY.

DSAFALS

"A visionary whose vision is scary"

Not if, but when. Expect one before the elections in November.......The powers that b need it. It's the same thing we saw before passage of the 1994 crime bill. We saw a lot of "Assault weapon" shootings. Funny, haven't heard of any for a while. Do you think it's because they were banned?

Sorry pal, ya quoted the wrong guy. I would follow Washingtons advice. We wouldn't even [b]be[/b] there....

liberty86, most on this board, just as in America, want to keep their comfortable lives, and even thou they would gladly go to a foreign country and die for this one, they would not die here for this one.

So I am afraid, we, or at the very least, our posterity, are doomed.

I agree. I blame it on public school and television.

Blame it on the parents, and the citizens. We set the real examples. You can see those who like their comforts, even by some of the posters here. Denial is not a river in Egypt. To acknowledge what is happening in our country means we must do something about it. Too many Americans cannot make the kind of sacrifice's that those who went before us were prepared to make on our behalf.....

That's seems to be a very paranoid statement. I am interested, who is the "real" target?  Gun owners?  White males?  So did the government plan the Sept, 11th attacks or did they have is diabolical plan in place for just this type of occasion?

Why did Klinton push gun control after the Murray building was blown up?

if by that you mean, did they have a diabolical plan worked up and ready to implement as soon as some act of terrorism gave them an excuse, i'd say yes.

if you mean, were they involved in producing the acts of terrorism, who knows --- it doesn' seem unlikely though, give that the fbi was involved in the first wtc bombing

I would say that many people related the OKC bombing to militias.  When people think of militias they think of assault weapons.  In an effort to show that they are doing something, the politicians passed more gun control laws.

But who put that connection in the American peoples heads?

Since neither the Democrats or the Republicans knew who was going to win the last election or if or when a terrorist attach was going to take place did they both have plans in place to take away our freedoms?  

Did the Republicans fix the last election so they could implement there plan knowing that there would be an attack during this presidential term?

What's your source on the FBI involvement in the first WTB attack.

The "Homeland Security" plan has been around for years.

Both parties are controlled by the "New World Order" crowd. It doesn't matter who gets elected, whether it's tweedely-dee, or tweedely-dum, the result is the same.


The transcripts of the trial of the perps in Federal District court.....

To specifically answer your question, the target is those Americans who believe the Constitution is the law of the land, and the ONLY legitimate contract between the govt. and the people, (not international treaties), and those who believe in American soveriegnty over an international order.....

raf, we have mixed it up before. You refuse to do the research, fine. Look at the presidents, and Congress for the last 85 years or so. Internationalist in it's proclivities, and getting worse since wwII....Look at the laws passed, and those proposed recently. Are you blind? Would it make more sense to have closed our borders after 9/11, and immediatly implemented a National concealed carry?? Weren't you one of the ones who said military trials, and detention without charges would not apply to American citizens?? HA!

What is it you are trying to get me to say raf? And why? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
[b]We should exactly what those who founded our nation would do if they faced the same circumstances we do.[/b]
Now, if you are still confused, be confused.

Just to clarify my position. I believe Bush is a respectable guy. I thank God that Gwhore isn't president. I do think changes made that restrict our freedom in the name of fighting terror are miss guided. It's a win for the terrorists. There is much potential for misuse of this newfound govt power in the future. Instead we should make it understood to these "people" who commit terror that their behavior is unacceptable. They understand one thing, unmerciful violence, and nothing else. It's our way of life on the line. I say give them what they understand and put a stop to this now. They will only get WMD for their future terror action. The time is now!

RAF,

I think what Lib86 is suggesting is that you take the contents of his statements and just apply a logical, linear and intelligent thought to them.

The conclusions and methodology to reach them, thought surely differing in high detail, are not that difficult ot grasp.

Asking him to 'explain' them, particularly in these forums, is wholly unrealistic.  You know what he means and you are fully capable of recognizing his course.

It seems to me that rather than do that you simply choose to offer up a 'prove it' retort and just ignore all the obvious intentions and meanings of this statements.

Sure, his positions may be weak, or even wrong.  I am not saying they are or aren't

but your replies are just filled with 'prove it' and 'explain it' one liners.  adn that us a cheap way to nullify ones points.

2 bits.

Zaz

One doesn't have to be psychic. You can tell what they would do by their past actions. Unlike some modern "Americans", their principals and personal honor meant something to them. Doesn't take "special knowledge". I leave that to those who think all is well on the home front.

Sure, we need to get back to the Constitution.  The measures that are being taken now are what happens when you allow the liberals to force their "don't offend anyone" agenda on the masses.  The 1st Amendment gives me the right to free speech.  So me which amendment gives you the right to not be offended.  I also say deport all these Arabs on student visas.  If they aren't citizens get them out of America.  Let them bomb their own countries up.

A few things:

First, who would you rather have as president? I mean, we had 2 viable choices in 2000, Gore or Bush. And you can't possibly believe that Gore would be more light-handed in terms of expanding federal power - 'big central govt' is the central tenet of modern liberalisim.

Bush has been very anti-internationalist, unilateral, and pro-US-sovereignty since he took office. He avoids international treaties whenever possible (and royally (no pun intended) pisses off the Euros by doing so), won't support the ICC (12 months to come home might as well be immunity, as no other government is going to get away with abducting US citizens (much less US military personell) from within our borders), and has even backed out of some more useless treaties (ABM).

And as for national IDs and law enforcement, we ALLREADY have 2 de-facto national ID systems: Inter-state drive-license and background check systems (ex NICS), and Social Security cards. We also have a plethora of interlockibng and overlaping federal LE agencies (BATF, FBI, Secret Service, Customs, INS, US Attorney/US Marshals, Even the EPA and Agriculture have their own (armed) law-enforcement bodies). Having a single national police agency makes sense (Dept of HS, however, as envisioned, is just another level of 'crat factor. That won't work), since you can fire a whole lot of pencil pushers and eliminate duplication of effort. You'll also can the inter-agency pissing matches that can make a difference between catching crooks (or terrorists) and catching air. Consolidate. Fire all the 'effort duplicating' administrators. Make sure their mandate is narrrow-as-possible. And use the money saved to add further enforcement, not more 'crats.

The only thing that really *IS* scary, is what Slick Hilly might do with this new federal power if she gets in. And the simplest way to hand the Dems the white house is to pull support from Bush over these issues. GWB is better than  Al, or Hillary, or whoever... So faced with the fact that either a Dem or Rep will be president (Sorry, but we just don't have any viable 3rd parties), take the best of the two.

Lib

Please post a link to the testimony that links the FBI to the first WTC bombing. I looked on the net and can't find any reference to it.

I did, you choose to ignore it





How much plainer do ya want? You're not that dense are you?