[b]"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."[/b]- George W. Bush, North County Times, December 19, 2000

[b]"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier."[/b]- George W. Bush,  Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday, July 27, 2001

[url=www.covenantnews.com/baldwin021122.htm]Bush Government 'Out of Control'[/url]

By Chuck Baldwin

The Covenant News ~ November 22, 2002

Back in August, columnist Paul Craig Roberts asked the question, "Is a vote for Republicans a vote for a police state?" The answer seems to be a resounding yes! The Bush administration seems determined to turn our country into the most elaborate and sophisticated police state ever devised.

[size=6]Things are so bad that outgoing house majority leader Dick Armey said that under Bush the federal government is "out of control." In fact, the conservative congressman is reported to be seriously considering taking a position with the ACLU in order to help fight the federal government's usurpation of constitutionally protected liberties. Does that mean one must leave the Republican Party in order to fight for liberty? Maybe so.

According to News Max, "Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is being targeted for defeat - not by the Democrats, but by the GOP establishment." Why? Tancredo is the country's most outspoken critic of Bush's accommodations of illegal aliens. In other words, it's not enough to be a conservative Republican; one must be absolutely loyal to the fuehrer, George Bush, and to his brand of big government Republicanism. Tancredo's not, so he's on his way out.[/size=6]

Furthermore, columnist William Safire recently warned against Bush's Homeland Security Act. In a column written for the New York Times Safire said, "Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend - all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database.'"

Safire continued, "To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you - passports, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI, your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance - and you have the supersnoop's dream: a 'Total Information Awareness' about every U.S. citizen."

In another account, The Seattle Times recently reported, "The USA Patriot Act remains shrouded in complexity and secrecy. Bush administration officials won't say how it has been used."

The Times continued by saying, "The CIA and FBI for the first time ever are allowed to mix foreign intelligence with law enforcement on U.S. soil. Citing the act, Attorney General John Ashcroft also authorized FBI agents to spy on domestic groups without having to show evidence of a crime."

The tyrannical tendencies of old King George III of England cannot hold a candle to the Machiavellian machinations of King George XLIII of the United States. Unfortunately, there are few Paul Reveres around to sound an alarm. Unless contemporary patriots act quickly, Republicans, not Democrats, will be the ones that ultimately dismantle our constitution and trample our liberties.

[url=www.nytimes.com/2002/11/23/politics/23ACLU.html]Defeated G.O.P. Congressman to Be Consultant for A.C.L.U.[/url]
By THE NEW YORK TIMES


WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 — The American Civil Liberties Union has agreed in principle to hire Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican and one of the most conservative members of Congress, as a consultant to work on privacy, surveillance and national security issues.

Mr. Barr was defeated in the Republican primary in August after redistricting forced him into a contest with another Republican congressman.

Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.'s executive director, said in an interview today that his group was completing a six-month contract with Mr. Barr that will start on Jan. 1.

"We are delighted to have Congressman Barr join us in advocating for individual privacy," Mr. Romero said. "It indicates that the A.C.L.U. has no permanent friends and no permanent allies, just permanent values."

Mr. Barr, a former prosecutor, gained national notice for his aggressive pursuit of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he has made a point of challenging Bush administration's policies that he believes could violate civil liberties.

Today's announcement follows a similar arrangement the A.C.L.U. has with Representative Dick Armey, the departing House majority leader who is also a conservative Republican. Mr. Armey has also been critical of some Bush administration initiatives, including a program that would have enlisted workers, delivery people and others to report suspicious activities by people in their homes and workplaces.

So, what's your point?????.....Has anyone violated your rights lately?....If so, When and where???????

Just think what Al Gore would be doing right now if he was in office.  [shock]

Point?  Don't ask too much of the boy...he prefers to simply run around screaming "the sky is falling!"

You guys are correct, if you have nothing to hide why would you worry about the government having this much power.[rolleyes]

Just keep yer heads in yer holes boys.  When they blow up your door, just keep yer head down...

Scott

Complainers...who else would you like in office?  Why don't you work on getting them elected instead of pissing and moaning.  Or are you so used to your tinfoil hat that you can't think any other way?

Al Gore banning guns.....GWB upholding the 94 ban.....GWB tapping our phones and recording all our purchases/web sites visited/etc......what's the difference?

Any one who thinks that this homeleand security act is harmless is a fool.  Anyone who thinks this is [i]"Necessary"[/i] to feel safer doesn't deserve liberty or freedom.

When has GWB upheld the 94 ban?  So GWB taps your phone, huh?  I thought that was up to judges, but I guess you know better, right?  If you know so much, why not mention who you would like to see in office and what you have done to make it happen.

Well dang DigDug, I'll just meet you at the swings at recess. Better leave your lunch money in your desk! [:D]

But seriously, lets see if the 94 ban stays and becomes permanent law, or goes away w/o further encroachments. I'm betting it stays.  Why? Because politics is the art of compromise, and the republicrats will compromise our rights.  

I've already got a bet going with the Hun.  If I'm right and the ban stays, he has to write "Boom_Stick is my hero" in his sig line for a month.  Care to get in on the bet?

Boom_stick,

You have already lost the bet.  The 94 ban will sunset no matter what.  A new piece of legislation will have to be passed by both houses of congress and signed by the pres.  The current bill can't be extended....new legislation has to replace it.

Also, you didn't answer any of my questions.  [:D]

It will be, and that's what the bet is about. Care to get in on it?

Before I answer anything, answer this...
Who's responsible for the "[i]Homeland security act[/i] ?  The most asinine invasion of privacy yet?

Boom_stick,

I hope you are working towards letting the 94 AW ban lapse, rather than just sitting around and complaining about it.  

Easy question.  The Senate, house and president will sign the bill into law.  

So what exactly does it do that couldn't be done before?  You think your records are private now?  Good one.

Also, you still haven't answered my questions.

Ok now, don't call into account my activity or inactivity in getting this ban smacked. I'm all for this evil monstrosity of a thing to go away. Thats not the issue though. The issue I'm tying to expose is where people put their faith.  Just because the Republicans are in control doesn't mean it'll just go away. Something else will take its place because of compromise.


Actually, the Total Information Awareness Program is John Poindexter and the "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's" brain child; [b]BUT STILL[/b] the one's ultimately responsible will be the senate, house and the president by enacting it opon us.
My and your activities are monitored now, but nowhere near to the extent this is going be.

To answer your questions, no.  GWB doesn't tap my phones personally, but the people at "Total Information Awareness Inc." will, at our leaders behest.

There's a war on, in case you didn't notice.  You know, nutcases trying to bring the leader of western civilization down.  Trying to creating panic, chaos, and fear by slaughtering us.

They can operate almost effortlessly because we are not used to tracking down and finding people like this. Conventional criminals and spies we have experience in countering aren't trying to find our weak points and then savagely attacking them, causing as much havoc as possible.

Our huge edge over these vermin is our money and our technology, which is what the Total Information Awareness program is trying to take advantage of.

If Bush is out of control in any aspect, I think he's spending way too much money in the federal budget.  $80b farm bill, for example.

Boom_stick,

I answered your questions, now why won't you answer mine?  Who would you like elected instead?  Would you like Al Gore in office right now?  What type of legislation would we have under a Gore administration?  Would ar15.com even exist under a Gore administration?  Or would it be shut down in the name of security.  9-11-01 would have happened no matter who was in the whitehouse.  Bill Clinton made sure of that.

If the EXACT same thing was going to be formed under the liberals/democrats, everyone here would be up in arms!!  Don't be so short sighted, this thing gives to much liberty to our government. What happens in the future? Not to say that now isn't the problem.

In other words, your willing to give up a little freedom and personal privacy to do the job of feeling a little "safer?" It doesn't matter if it's technology or the most efficient paper and ink handwritten system! It's still wrong and goes against the spirit of liberty!

The lesser of the two evils question?  I use to be glad Bush got it(out of the two), but now I'm not so sure.  I voted libertarian for conscience sake.  

I care about what's right, not political party wise.  I happen to see the libertarians holding to what's right in issue of running our Gov.  That could change, but for now they have my support.  

Boom_stick,

I just used Gore as an example.  If you believe that the libertatian party is for you, support them to the fullest.  Just remember that your vote may lead to liberal democrats getting into office.  If you think liberal democrats are the same as conservative republicans, then vote your concience.  The democratic socialist union of the USA will allow you all the rights they want.  

Democrats will continue to win in the future if conservatives keep chewing each other up because they want an ideal world.  There is no such thing as an ideal world.  Time for reality.

Imbro, people prefer the siren song of Fascism to Freedom.

I am worried about the new laws being mis-used. I don't fear the Republicans as much, but once the Democrats are in power, they will be able to abuse power in the same way.

Reality is: I voted libertarian across the board, and the repub's are STILL overwhelmingly in charge, and their homeland security act is going to bite us in the arse when those liberals or a despot Gov gets ahold of it.
Who can we look back to thank then?

[u]Everyone[/u] should vote their conscience and for what's right.  Not just the lesser of the two evils.

This may make you feel good, but you won't have any rights left.  Like I said, welcome to the real world.

Rep. Ron Paul  TX

I can't stand the liberal Democrats & have sypathetic leanings towards the Libertarian but I usually vote Republican becuase of the lesser of two evils theory [b]BUT[/b] that doesn't mean I endorse the erosion of civil liberties just becuase the "conservatives" are doing it.

I don't give a shit who's responsible for passing such laws, it's a shortsighted fucking mistake that opens the door for major abuses down the road.  What do you think the Brownshirts where doing for Hitler in the Reichstag 1930's ??

How about Stalin's predecessors?
It's an invitation for abuse by future leaders(rulers?).

Read a little history &/or Orwell/Huxley/Kafka/Solzhenitsyn

[b]"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither" [/b] B. Franklin

So you do think the '94 AW bill will be renewed by the GOP congress & GW or not ??

HUH?  Voting for what's right has [i]NOTHING[/i] to do with emotionalism or "feel good" sentiment.  What's right is right, period.  No emotion about it. As a natural consequence, voting for what's right just happens to keep my conscience clear.
I'm nowhere near motivated to vote by the emotional state of euphoria[blue](i.e.:liberals)[/blue].  

I think you misunderstood me.    

cnatra,

The current 94 AW ban can not be renewed.  That is a fact.  It will expire in 2004.  Something else will have to be passed.  I am working to make that not happen.  Are you just sitting around complaining about it, or are you doing something to let the issue die like you should be?

I gotta go put some rounds down range.  I'll be back in a while gents. [i]----tips his hat----[/i]

I can agree that what's right is right, but there are different ways to implement this.  Throwing a vote away is not the proper way to do this.  The democrats ruled this country for the last 40+ years.  Have we not learned anything from them?

Have fun....it's almost dark here.. :^(

I'm acutely aware of this but I just wanted to be sure I understood what you where saying before I replied.




Why don't you step down off your soapbox for a second.

I'm a member here, I'm a [b]life[/b] member of the:

[b]NRA[/b]
[b]GOA[/b]
[b]TSRA[/b]

I send additional [green]$$[/green] to the above organizations annually for the "legislative action commitees".

I write,e-mail & call my elected represenitives often on 2nd ammenmment & other issues.

Still, I recognize the reality of politics & will bet [b]you[/b] [green]$100[/green] that the GOP Congress & GW pass legislation renewing the '94 AW ban.

It will be political suicide in an election year if they don't. I hope I'm wrong & I hope guys like Sen.(elect)John Cornyn stick to their campaign promises but I'm skeptical they can pull it off.  Too many moderate Republicans(in the NE & for all the soccer moms in the burbs) & the Democrats would just fan the media frenzy.

This homeland security will come back to bite gun owners in the ass.  Its a backdoor registration.  What happens when the biggest gun grabber in the world takes office?  You dont think she will think the homeland security bill means that she can ban ownership of guns?  Come on now you know she is securing you from the danger of firearms deaths.  That is exactly how a gun grabber thinks.

cnatra,

Some people live their lives always expecting the worst to happen.  I am not one of those people.

Read the post on the first page, and let everyone know that if they vote for a new AW ban, they will no longer be in office...just like 1994.  Too many people sit on their asses and do nothing.  It is not a high horse, it is called a soap box!  [:D]

A new "assault weapon" ban does not have to be passed. All Bush has to do is write an executive order extending the ban for another couple years while using the excuse so that a comittee could "study" the law's effectiveness or some other such garbage. They do that kind of crap all of the time in that screwed up state of Kalifornia. In 1996, A short time before the state 15 day waiting period on firearms transfers was to legally sunset to 10 days, the State Attorney General and subsequent candidate for Governor,DAN LUNGREN- A REPUBLICAN- took it upon himself to EXTEND the waiting period to 21 days.

That's the main reason why I made the bet with Hun, DigDug. [b]It's a test of faith.[/b]
Want to get in on the bet? [BD] Hun wouldn't take a gentlemens bet of $$ amount, rather he took the easier bet cause his faith in the repubs and bush is not solid in this area. I don't blame him though.  I wouldn't bet me money either, considering the past compromises the repubs have made on our behalf!



Don't get me wrong, It's a good to have an optimistic attitude, but not to blind yourself to history.  The worst IS going to happen, and it is going to be sooner than most people think.  I feel comfortable right now, but I know that being comfortable is just an illusion. Bush's stupid homeland security act is telling people to give up some of their rights to feel safe. Its a BAD compromise, and those who support it do not deserve the freedom of privacy. These kind of compromises have a historical track record of being a bad decision for the long run.

No, that's almost certainly not true.  The worst rarely happens, historically.  Nor does the best.  Usually it's something inbetween.

That may fly in California, but the power of a Federal Executive Order doesn't extend beyond the federal government...

EO's can only affect federal employees/agencies. The reason the Bush Sr's 'Import Ban' came as an EO is that it directed a Federal Agency (ATF/Customs) to re-classify a certain item under existing law.

The AWB specifically says in-the-law that it will expire 10 years from enactment. There is nothing that an EO can change about that.

It *CAN* be extended by repealing the sunset provision, or ammending it. But this requires the passage of a bill, taking the same process as writing a whole new law.




P.S. I wholehartedly agree with the creation of the DHS, I just think they're taking the wrong approach.

DHS should be a consolidation of ALL FEDERAL LE AGENCIES. So instead of funding the DEA, ATF, FBI, US Marshal Service, Customs, Border Patrol, and such, we have DHS. And we fire all of the extra 'crats who would then be 'redundant' due to the consolidation. You thus create a leaner, cleaner, and more effective Federal LE establishment (and a cheaper one too...).

Post from Boom_Stick -

Now your memory is failing you, my friend. I think it demeaning to bet money with a friend.

I do not know your financial condition, nor do you know mine. I would not want to impose on your good graces to set a money bet that you think too high, nor would I want you to set a number that I think too high.

If we knew each other's finances better, then maybe a money bet would be in order, but as it stands the bet is one of honor touched with a small bit of humor!

That's the way it should be for now, at least.

Eric The(PoorerThanAChurchMouse)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, I was only thinking in terms of the gentlemens bet of $1.  Don't get me wrong, I'm quite satisfied with the current wager, but I was only thinking of a dollar.

[size=1]It's not to late to win a $1 though! [i]Wanna up the bet to $1??[/i] Put your money where your faith is!? Huh? do ya, do ya? Come on, I need money for a bag of chips! [/size=1] [:D]