• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Feds want more Power

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Do you want the Feds and the Army moving in and taking control the next time you have a hurricane or a bad blizzard- without even being asked or invited? What constitutes a "Domestic Emergency"? If Congress gives the President this type of power, remember Hillary could be making the decision as the Commander in Chief of the Military 3 years from now.... :???:

Is It The Republican Party Or Just G.W. Bush?
by Chuck Baldwin
September 30, 2005



The Republican Party professes to stand for less government and more freedom. It claims to be a conservative party. However, ever since assuming control of the entire federal government, it has revealed itself to be something entirely different.
For example, since the White House and both houses of Congress have been under Republican Party domination, the federal government has increased federal expenditures and deficits to levels never before seen. Beyond that, individual liberties have come under federal assault in ways that would make even old King George seem tame.

The latest example of the Republican Party's seeming insatiable desire to eviscerate constitutional liberties is the announcement by President Bush that he seeks to federalize domestic emergencies. According to The Washington Times, "President Bush yesterday [September 26] sought to federalize hurricane-relief efforts, removing governors from the decision-making process."

The Times reports that Bush is seeking to change federal law to create "a new, direct line of authority that would allow the president to place the Pentagon in charge of responding to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and outbreaks of disease."

According to the Times report, President Bush wants to shift power and authority to deal with domestic emergencies from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and give it to the Department of Defense (DoD).

However, as the Times notes, "tabilizing a crisis might require federal troops to arrest looters and perform other law-enforcement duties, which would violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The law was passed in the wake of the Civil War and Reconstruction to prevent the use of federal troops from policing elections in former Confederate states.

"The White House wants Congress to consider amending Posse Comitatus in order to grant the Pentagon greater powers."

Before the American people allow their congressmen to yield to the president's thirst for greater and greater federal expansion into the affairs of states and local communities, however, they need to realize that the end result of this power-grab will only prove to be an unmitigated disaster for liberty! In fact, it would literally undo the American experiment and turn our country into a monarchy at worst or an oligarchy at best.

Military personnel are not trained (and should not be) for domestic law-enforcement. They cannot worry about Mirandizing suspects or waiting for search warrants. Their concern is not about the right of Habeas Corpus or the laws against searches and seizures. To them is committed the waging of war. They are trained to kill and destroy. Do we really want to send soldiers and Marines into our own streets and neighborhoods with their guns turned on American citizens? God forbid!

The reason freedom has survived more than 200 years of history is due to the American people's lawful access to firearms and to the preservation of our republican form of government. It appears that President Bush is determined to undo the latter. And if the way in which the Republican Party quickly passed an egregiously flawed Patriot Act is any indicator, the GOP seems poised to support Bush in this quest, also.

The Republican Party needs to do some serious introspection. Are these despotic machinations the personal foibles of a fumbling Chief Executive or are they the innate desires of the entire party? The GOP's recent love affair with burgeoning government and shrinking liberties makes it necessary for every lover of freedom to seriously ponder that question.

 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
while it may be enticing to let the Federal govermant fix a problem, one must remember that at every level of the local goverment this could have been fixed had each done thier sworn duty,

Maybe it would be better to let the Military handle FEMA, thus eliminating the incompatance of FEMA , but a model such as the Coast Gaurd would be much more effective and not require the amendment,,,,,,

and that using the scare tactic such as this,
Military personnel are not trained (and should not be) for domestic law-enforcement. They cannot worry about Mirandizing suspects or waiting for search warrants. Their concern is not about the right of Habeas Corpus or the laws against searches and seizures. To them is committed the waging of war. They are trained to kill and destroy. Do we really want to send soldiers and Marines into our own streets and neighborhoods with their guns turned on American citizens? God forbid!
ignores the Fact that the Coast Gaurd has operated in the same guidelines as all the other military branches and handles it's coastal police duty with great results,,,,,Having "patroled with the Coasties, they are extremely good at catching the bad guys, without killing and destroying anything,,but then again maybe if the media gave them any media attention this would be self evident.......

This is just another liberal article seeming to "care" about the GOP while targeting President Bush's attempt to fix a inept organization.......
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer, did you see this? Republicans in IN want to control us even into our reproductive rights. Link below.

"Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.”

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation and egg donation must first file for a “petition for parentage” in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the “gestational certificate” that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the “gestational certificate” will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents."


http://www.nuvo.net/archive/2005/10/05/unauthorized_reproduction.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve-I don't know if the author of this was liberal or conservative- but I do know that many of the conservative media are the ones opposing it the loudest- I guess they can see the vision of Hilary ordering out the 82nd Airborne to seize our guns at the first available emergency...

I don't agree totally with the article- because I'm a believer that the Patriot Act was necessary and will be for decades while fighting the terrorist extremist muslim war- but it still allows for legislative and judiciary oversight....But I do agree that over the thirty years I spent in Law Enforcement, state and local rights have dropped greatly to an ever expanding federal authority- and not for the good....

Just because a city local government and a governor mishandled a situation and refused to ask for help, should not mean that we immediately throw out the requirement that they must request before Feds move in and take over.......

I think there are already sufficient government powers to deal with any emergency that humans are capable of dealing with. Governors can call up the states' National Guard. The President can declare an emergency and use troops to support non-police emergency efforts, such as provide labor, logistical support and information. The President already can use troops to put down an insurrection. How much more power is really necessary? None.

Maybe the Katrina disaster shows the need to build and maintain stronger militias (National Guard) and have them available to the state governments to support local law enforcement... If our good buddy Clinton hadn't totally gutted our full time military- we wouldn't need Guardsmen being called up for overseas duty, except in the case of a major war- and they would be available to provide domestic protection.....

I understand that one of the reasons, President Bush was looking at the legislation was because of the Avian Flu impending problems- so that he could have the power to close borders and quarantine the nation to prevent the spread...But he already has the power to use the military to protect our borders- to close them down if necessary to prevent the disease, or terrorists, or drugs from entering the country- that comes under the border protections which noone in any administration has had the backbone to fully use with illegal immigrants (terrorists?) or drugs.......
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer said:
Steve-I don't know if the author of this was liberal or conservative- but I do know that many of the conservative media are the ones opposing it the loudest- I guess they can see the vision of Hilary ordering out the 82nd Airborne to seize our guns at the first available emergency...

I don't agree totally with the article- because I'm a believer that the Patriot Act was necessary and will be for decades while fighting the terrorist extremist muslim war- but it still allows for legislative and judiciary oversight....But I do agree that over the thirty years I spent in Law Enforcement, state and local rights have dropped greatly to an ever expanding federal authority- and not for the good....

Just because a city local government and a governor mishandled a situation and refused to ask for help, should not mean that we immediately throw out the requirement that they must request before Feds move in and take over.......

I think there are already sufficient government powers to deal with any emergency that humans are capable of dealing with. Governors can call up the states' National Guard. The President can declare an emergency and use troops to support non-police emergency efforts, such as provide labor, logistical support and information. The President already can use troops to put down an insurrection. How much more power is really necessary? None.

Maybe the Katrina disaster shows the need to build and maintain stronger militias (National Guard) and have them available to the state governments to support local law enforcement... If our good buddy Clinton hadn't totally gutted our full time military- we wouldn't need Guardsmen being called up for overseas duty, except in the case of a major war- and they would be available to provide domestic protection.....

I understand that one of the reasons, President Bush was looking at the legislation was because of the Avian Flu impending problems- so that he could have the power to close borders and quarantine the nation to prevent the spread...But he already has the power to use the military to protect our borders- to close them down if necessary to prevent the disease, or terrorists, or drugs from entering the country- that comes under the border protections which noone in any administration has had the backbone to fully use with illegal immigrants (terrorists?) or drugs.......

OT has changed his tune quite a bit since this post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve-I don't know if the author of this was liberal or conservative- but I do know that many of the conservative media are the ones opposing it the loudest- I guess they can see the vision of Hilary ordering out the 82nd Airborne to seize our guns at the first available emergency...

I don't agree totally with the article- because I'm a believer that the Patriot Act was necessary and will be for decades while fighting the terrorist extremist muslim war- but it still allows for legislative and judiciary oversight....But I do agree that over the thirty years I spent in Law Enforcement, state and local rights have dropped greatly to an ever expanding federal authority- and not for the good....

Just because a city local government and a governor mishandled a situation and refused to ask for help, should not mean that we immediately throw out the requirement that they must request before Feds move in and take over.......

I think there are already sufficient government powers to deal with any emergency that humans are capable of dealing with. Governors can call up the states' National Guard. The President can declare an emergency and use troops to support non-police emergency efforts, such as provide labor, logistical support and information. The President already can use troops to put down an insurrection. How much more power is really necessary? None.

Maybe the Katrina disaster shows the need to build and maintain stronger militias (National Guard) and have them available to the state governments to support local law enforcement... If our good buddy Clinton hadn't totally gutted our full time military- we wouldn't need Guardsmen being called up for overseas duty, except in the case of a major war- and they would be available to provide domestic protection.....

I understand that one of the reasons, President Bush was looking at the legislation was because of the Avian Flu impending problems- so that he could have the power to close borders and quarantine the nation to prevent the spread...But he already has the power to use the military to protect our borders- to close them down if necessary to prevent the disease, or terrorists, or drugs from entering the country- that comes under the border protections which noone in any administration has had the backbone to fully use with illegal immigrants (terrorists?) or drugs.......

OT has changed his tune quite a bit since this post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed, like looking the other way while the IRS is used against The Messiah's politican opponents.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve-I don't know if the author of this was liberal or conservative- but I do know that many of the conservative media are the ones opposing it the loudest- I guess they can see the vision of Hilary ordering out the 82nd Airborne to seize our guns at the first available emergency...

I don't agree totally with the article- because I'm a believer that the Patriot Act was necessary and will be for decades while fighting the terrorist extremist muslim war- but it still allows for legislative and judiciary oversight....But I do agree that over the thirty years I spent in Law Enforcement, state and local rights have dropped greatly to an ever expanding federal authority- and not for the good....

Just because a city local government and a governor mishandled a situation and refused to ask for help, should not mean that we immediately throw out the requirement that they must request before Feds move in and take over.......

I think there are already sufficient government powers to deal with any emergency that humans are capable of dealing with. Governors can call up the states' National Guard. The President can declare an emergency and use troops to support non-police emergency efforts, such as provide labor, logistical support and information. The President already can use troops to put down an insurrection. How much more power is really necessary? None.

Maybe the Katrina disaster shows the need to build and maintain stronger militias (National Guard) and have them available to the state governments to support local law enforcement... If our good buddy Clinton hadn't totally gutted our full time military- we wouldn't need Guardsmen being called up for overseas duty, except in the case of a major war- and they would be available to provide domestic protection.....

I understand that one of the reasons, President Bush was looking at the legislation was because of the Avian Flu impending problems- so that he could have the power to close borders and quarantine the nation to prevent the spread...But he already has the power to use the military to protect our borders- to close them down if necessary to prevent the disease, or terrorists, or drugs from entering the country- that comes under the border protections which noone in any administration has had the backbone to fully use with illegal immigrants (terrorists?) or drugs.......

OT has changed his tune quite a bit since this post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually- I can't see anything I've changed my mind on-- except for the fact as time has gone on I've seen more negatives come to light because of the consolidation of so much power under one organization- Homeland Security- that came about because of the Patriot Act-- I'm not as much of a backer of it....


The Republican Party professes to stand for less government and more freedom. It claims to be a conservative party. However, ever since assuming control of the entire federal government, it has revealed itself to be something entirely different.
For example, since the White House and both houses of Congress have been under Republican Party domination, the federal government has increased federal expenditures and deficits to levels never before seen. Beyond that, individual liberties have come under federal assault in ways that would make even old King George seem tame.

I supported GW even thru his second election altho his actions were already becoming questionable- but didn't think we needed to change horses mid- war...

But as this author points out-- old GW blew the roof off what the conservative/Republican party I knew stood for with his warmongering, nationbuilding, spending, and usurping of constitutional rights by use of Presidential mandates/signing statements...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Oldtimer said:
But as this author points out-- old GW blew the roof off what the conservative/Republican party I knew stood for with his warmongering, nationbuilding, spending, and usurping of constitutional rights by use of Presidential mandates/signing statements...

You're so full of crap it's amazing you can breathe.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
But as this author points out-- old GW blew the roof off what the conservative/Republican party I knew stood for with his warmongering, nationbuilding, spending, and usurping of constitutional rights by use of Presidential mandates/signing statements...

You're so full of crap it's amazing you can breathe.

Bush kept us united during the two worst disasters in the history of the U.S. If I remember correctly, the airlines were shut down for over a week and commerce almost came to a standstill. And this was just following the recession Clinton left behind.

Buckwheat would have screwed that up worse than a soup sandwich. :shock:
 

Latest posts

Top