I know this will sound a little wild-eyed but it is something that has been on my mind of late. This concern of mine sort of sprang from what I would consider a lack of discussion of possible Republican presidential candidates in MSM. I know the election is two years away, and I know there has been some discussion of candidates but not as much as I would have expected. I believe that the neo-cons have established themselves as the controlling influence of the Republican party (no revelation there) and I believe that they will stop at nothing to maintain control of the Executive Branch as made evident over the last two presidential elections.

To cut this meandering post short, would a scenario that includes a major "terrorist" action agains the U.S. that allowed the president to declare martial law and suspend elections be so far out of the question as to merit crazy conspiracy theory status?

The following excerpt is from Wikipedia's definition of martial law and U.S. law regarding when martial law may be declared;

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In Ex parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866, the Supreme Court of the United States held that martial law could not be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors.

Controversy
Debate exists in regard to the legality of a Presidential decree of martial law, due to recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives that were put in place in the Reagan era. When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua, he issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency with broad powers in the event of a crisis such as violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a U.S. military invasion abroad. To date, these powers have never been used but with the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests and the possibility of avian flu spreading globally, concerns have been raised that these powers could be employed or a de facto drift into their deployment could occur.

In addition, from 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal. They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA. FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is now also responsible for handling U.S. domestic unrest. With recent proposals to criminalise illegal and undocumented immigrants, the United States saw itself immersed in a debate at the end of March and beginning of April about these laws and the role of immigration post-September 11th.

A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the deputy of former FEMA director Louis O. Giuffrida, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one titled "Rex 84", which Mr. Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat a national uprising by black militants. It provided for the detention of at least 21 million African-Americans in assembly centers or relocation camps. Following a request by the Pentagon in January, 2002, that the U.S. military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the Anser Institute for Homeland Security in February, 2002, published a paper by current-employee Mr. Brinkerhoff that argued the legality of this. He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied. The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on, under Mr. Giuffrida, was approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it.

The full facts and final contents of Reagan's national plan remain uncertain, in part because President Bush took the unprecedented step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers in November of 2001 via Executive Order 13233. The papers in question, some dealing with Reagan-era officials who now have high posts in the Bush administration, were to have been disclosed under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which said that the documents could be restricted at the most for 12 years after Reagan left office.

Sorry if I come off as an alarmist or merely a crackpot. These are issues that concern me and I thought I'd get feedback from all of you. Thanks.

DoremusJessup,

First off hello.



And your alarmist-ness isn't alone. For aver a year now I've been sensing another 9/11 pre-2008 elections. And with that event, the ingrained rhetoric of "Why American needs the GOP Bush/Cheney presidency to fight terrorism" will be strengthened and the elections might be called off due to impending National Securities. After all, the GOP talking point has always been, "The Democrats are weak on National Security. And they will remain weak as long as they are not in power. And since they haven't been in power for a long, long time now, their track record speaks for itself. And therefore, it is best to stay with the tried and true system that has proved itself the status quo that has been in place for several years now fighting terrorism. And if we change directions and party platforms, this will show the terrorists that America is weak on National Securities and will signal to the terrorists that America is vulnerable and will eventually invite them here."

Blah blah blah.

I guess that could happen though I seriously doubt it. IF GWB was doing a great job, and IF the public had 100% faith in the administration, and IF the press didnt take any and every opportunity to slam the administration (ie...public awareness) the I guess it would be possible. But, all of those "if's" are pretty big. To suspend elections could very well mean a public insurrection. I can't see it happening. Its within the scope of possibilities but it's not like GWB isnt heavily contested on both sides. I doubt the Republicans would even nod at that. The Dem's...shit...they would go fooking ballistic.

Well, as the Bard would say, "Therein lies the rub." I GWB was doing a great job with high public support, we would just be staring down the barrel of 4 more years of neo-con rule with someone else's name on the door. What if the powers that be get a little desperate down the stretch? I suppose they could turn to the tried and true method of merely manipulating votes but that's been done and gotten away with. Why not go all the way this time? Apparantly, a large majority of the American public is willing to allow the theft of a Presidential election (twice) a little martial law won't be a big deal. Besides, we'll all be safer for it!

You know, Jess....this election theft thing (electoral process) is as much a product of the left as it is the right. Electoral process is not one of my favorite things and while I will concede the first election was....contestable on the basis of popular versus Electorate...the 2nd well, we just disagree.

Maybe my hopes for intelligent process is old hat but we are not on a war footing where rationing, gas stamps, ect are in place. Pulling that heavy a hand out would make even the hard line right wingers look at their party with a jaundiced eye. OK, a MORE jaundiced eye. I think even right leaning people like myself would go ballistic if the Republicans pulled a stunt like that. But, if it happens, remind that "you told me so" and Ill meet you and the rest in DC. Ill demonstrate a time honored tradition in my family. "How to protest and get thrown in jail".

Not just the Dems going ballistic, but I suspect Abell would also go ballistic, as well as most of the rest of the country and a sizable portion of the US military too!


I do see the red flags that seems to indicate this is possible, but I really doubt that it will.
Such a move could very well put THIS country into a very violent situation.

Martial Law would require willing troups on the streets...they're busy elsewhere, and I'm not sure how many would be willing. That said, its not an unrealistic possibility. I don't put the probability very high, but I think it would be foolish to think they don't have some committee working on the idea.

This is a pretty fantastic scenario. I don't see state governors supporting it with the mobilization of their NG troops to enforce martial law.

The Democrats in congress wouldn't sit still for it, it would be challenged in court. I don't see moderate Republicans sitting still for it either. If they had to, I think they'd kill it with new legislation. But if elections were actually suspended? There would be such a hue and cry across this land that I think we're talking about revolt. And I'd be one of the first to form a militia of freedom fighters, operating from the hills and forests with our hunting rifles if necessary.

But you know, that planets would have to be aligned perfectly for something like this to come to fruition. I just don't see it happening. This president is lacking one major ingredient; cult of personality. He doesn't possess it, his popularity is plummeting, Americans ae looking forward to 2008. I just don't see the American people sitting still for this.

The ability to suspend elections, and possiboly get away with it for a short period,
would reqire multiple 9/11's.

"a major "terrorist" action"

I was aluding to a multiple 9/11's situation when I said this. I should have been more specific. This entire thread is predicated on the fact that something that would make 9/11 look like jay-walking would have to happen in order for these pieces to all fall together. If that were to happen, the military as well as, at least the Republican party (probably a lot of the Democrats too) would all fall in line. The concept of the courts and Congress involving themselves would be moot as martial law would, I believe, suspend the effectiveness of those institutions. Otherwise, what's the point of martial law?

I understand the "beyond the box" theme of this thread. Hell, I didn't think anyone would be capable of flying airplanes into buildings (whoever they are) either.

As far as election theft Abell, I would go back and reread my Robert F Kennedy Jr. if I were you.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/104...on_stolen/print

Great article, Jess. Maybe if I read more of the offline articles I would know this stuff. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wasnt exactly on my "must read list". Research in that article seemed to be well grounded. But..is it conclusive? I don't know. I mean think about it. If it was a case of fraud as the article indicates, why is nothing being done? NO real press, no real pressure from the Dem side. It just seems improbable that the Dems would lay down and let it ride. Shit, they havent let anything MINOR lay, why this?

I voted for Bush but the REAL truth is...if I thought the election was stolen and it was rigged, my entire belief system in democracy would be trashed. I take voting seriously. I take fairness seriously. And I take the thought of the GOP doing this crap seriously. If this is true.....why was it not challenged more harshly? I dont like losing but I would rather lose honestly than win as a cheat.

Others are thinking this too. Stephen Gillers is a professor of law at New York University School of Law.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/gillers
Bush Postpones 2008 Election

by STEPHEN GILLERS

[from the August 14, 2006 issue]

Cites Constitutional Power to Protect Nation's Security

What Did 'Four Years' Mean in 1789?

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2008. President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order "to protect the American people in our war on terror."

In a speech during a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he celebrated the summer solstice with the troops, Mr. Bush told the nation that the election will be "rescheduled as soon as a change in leadership does not create a security threat and not a second later. When the Iraqis stand up, we'll vote."

"Elections are important," the President acknowledged. "I know that. I believe in elections. I'm President because of an election, sort of. But protecting the nation from another 9/11 is more important than holding an election precisely on time."

The President noted that as Commander in Chief he had already approved telephone wiretapping without court warrant, incarcerated alleged "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial and, in a February 2002 order, now rescinded, had authorized the armed forces to ignore the Geneva Conventions when "consistent with military necessity," so long as everyone was treated "humanely."

"If I can do all that, I can defer an election," the President said. "Look, as between not voting on time and getting locked up without all those Geneva rules and such, which is worse?"

In a Washington press conference following the President's speech, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out the legal basis for his department's conclusion that the President could postpone the election.

"Legally, it's simple," Mr. Gonzales said. "It depends on what the meaning of 'four years' is. The Constitution says the President 'shall hold his office during the term of four years.' It does not say 'only four years' or 'four years and not a day more.' The Framers intended 'four years' to be a preference, not a rigid number. We should not take it literally any more than the words 'hold his office' means no woman can be President. A woman is running now.

"Time meant something different in 1789," Mr. Gonzales added. "This was before airline schedules and self-winding watches. People didn't run their lives by the clock. Many Americans didn't have clocks."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Joseph Lieberman (IND-Conn.) supported the President's decision. "While I do not believe we should lightly suspend the exercise of the franchise," he said, "protection of the nation cannot be and must not be a partisan issue. As Americans, we can all agree that security is the most important job of a President. We can have a country without an election, but we cannot have an election without a country. It's as simple as that."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the likely Democratic nominee, had no immediate comment, but her office said she will hold a news conference following the results of early polling. A spokesperson for her campaign, granted anonymity because she was not authorized to speak to the press about anything, said the senator "is absolutely opposed to postponing the election as such, but she is amenable to rescheduling the day designated for the actual vote. There is a difference."

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled" that he had not been consulted on the President's decision. He vowed to "hold hearings following the day that should have been election day if I am chairman of the committee at that time. Unfortunately, we're backlogged on judicial nominations at the moment, and then there's the summer recess. People have plans and nonrefundable tickets."

At his press conference, Mr. Gonzales denied that the Supreme Court's 2006 rejection of military tribunals meant that the President could not delay an election. That decision, known as Hamdan, rested on federal statutes and the Geneva Accords. "Hamdan was about trials, not voting," he explained. "Geneva doesn't apply to voting. It's a mistake to confuse the two."

Asked if he expected a court challenge to the President's decision, Mr. Gonzales said he was "resigned to the prospect that some may cynically try to use this for their own political advantage." But he added that he was "confident that if the case reaches the Supreme Court, five Justices will agree with our interpretation of 'four years.'"

I take back my comment about needing troops on the ground to accomplish that. I forgot about "contactors". Who needs troops when you can hire mercanaries?

"why was it not challenged more harshly?"

Good question. I guess I have to blame several sources. MSM, for turning a blind eye to the situation. Almost to a network anchor, MSM accepted the election results and moved on. No wonder most of the population would not be able to describe what happened in Ohio. I think, as the article I referenced points out, Olberman was the only MSM guy to seriously question the results (I liked him during the ESPN days and more now). A Republican controlled Congress has managed to avoid any serious investigation of the issue as well. Above all I think there is a serious disconnect between what has happened over the past two elections and how it affects the day to day life of the average citizen and what they know of what's going on. Personally, I thinkn these are the conditions that make our current slide toward fascism so seemingly inexorable.

I agree whole heartedly, it would not be beyond this administration to pull something like that. As far as suspending elections without a catastrophe, they seem to believe they are above the law already, whats to stop them in 2 years? MSM is just along for the ride at this point, so they could begin the "brainwashing" months in advance. It would be ironic that Bush commends these foriegn countries for votiing under the threat of death, but would think we weakling Americans couldn't handle it.

Abell,

That's the same set of questions we have been saying for 6 years now.
Though we've already by now had to come to terms with our political dissilusionment.

You wanna know what frustrating really is?
It's when you know a crime is being committed and can't do anything about it.
It's when you have solid evidence from many sources on many levels,
it's when you have finger prints on the smoking gun that fired the silver bullets, and no one want's to know about it!

Yep, we been asking those same questions now for 6 years!
Glad to have you aboard!

I doubt it, but I dread the possibility.

Greater Nations then our own have fallen to far less things then what is discribed here.

That said, name me one Democratic/Republic State that fell into Fascism or even Benevolent Dictatorship was done when the population was......




None you say exist? The Nazi party didnt even have a majority of control of the government when they took power of Germany. Do you not think they had proud warrriors who would not bend under the rule of a tyrannt? Same with Italy and the Black Shirts. Or Spain, Portugal, and the many examples eslewhere over the world of pre-WWI Democratic/Republic states falling inot such a political state.

The American people dont even care any more that more then half of our national budget is being spent outside our borders. Last election in my state had a wooping 3% turnout for voting. Yes 3%! What is better, a population like Saddems, where he had to force them to vote at gun point or a population like America, where the people dont care enough to vote.

Why? Because we care to much about ourselves INSTEAD of America. We are too busy to even make a mark on a piece of paper, let alone putting our life on the line when it will be far easier to live life in chains.

Now, there is no need for me to go into the mountains of data on how almost 100% of humans will do what is told from an authoritive figure is they are held blameless and buddy Terror is making a good scapgoat for people to use.

"Dnt blame me I killed these people, Terror made me do it."

Right. This will never happen in America. Oh wait, it already has.

I think everyone would agree that the possibility DOES exist however, I think it is remote at best. But, maybe that is my naive opinion. Germany was not a huge hallmark of Democracy even in it's best pre-war footing. Hitler had opposition, true....but he also had the ability to silence the press.

I truely hope you are wrong. I mean, down to the soul. If it did, I and many like me would go thermo-nuclear. The Press, the Dem's, the fence sitters....even the thinking Republicans. I know, you dont think there is such a thing but MM...do you have any idea how many Republicans are looking at GW and saying...WTF? It is more than people are giving sound credence to.

Its easy to call all Republicans "idiots". Throwing names and labels on them as if they were blind and stupid. But, if you will look at what they believe and want, it's not that far removed from much of the thinking on this board. Smaller Government, sound fiscal platform, less interference in our lives, reasonable Foreign policy, and sound investment in our OWN country. Bro...maybe Im wrong and I hope Im not...but I do NOT think this country would stand for it. Maybe I am giving the US too much credit.

Abell, I am a Republican.

Oh....well hell. Let's go start a war or something.

That cracked me up!

(Not that the idea of war cracks me up or..well...starting a war or....hell, you know what I mean)

Abell, I do not think a war or a violent revolution is the answer. I do think something needs to be done to curb the fact that Americans are losing control of their country to wealthy intrest.

One thing would be to have clean, paper ballots back. Another would be to fully dissect the idea of the Bush Admistrations views of the Constitution and how they are abusing it.

The list goes on and on. Their are many viable and intelligent ideas on how to best deal with the surmounting situtation of our foreign policy and the growing concerns over the grib the Bush administration is making on our daily lives.

The sad part is there are not enough bodies to push these ideas into the forefront of American politics.

I think the events the OP discribed are a valid outcome, I will concede it will be tough to pull off, but who is standing in there way as they do it bloodlessly? Did we forget about bloodless coupes?

Well?

Sorry...I was at a Flame Ceremony and wasnt paying attention.




MM. I was reading pretty heavily last night about this possibility, how an election could be postponed under a national emergency act. For instance, there is a man known as Adnan el Skukrijumah who is alledgedly the trigger man for 7 supposed limited nukes purchased by Bin Laden from one of the former USSR and as the story goes, already in the US. Targets being Houston, New York, Las Vegas, LA, Boston, Chicago, Miami. It goes further to say that he stole some additional radioactive material in Canada. All of this being said and depending on the validity....I can see where this would be a plausible reason to stop an election. Im not sure what it would take. The threat or the actual happening...but as someone pointed out.

Now to your statement. The trouble MM as I see it is this.While there are many people on both sides of the issues that are actively engaged in the political process I think the overall population is in a state of apathy.
Some have used the word "Sheeple" which, as I have given it thought, is very true. Im not convinced an election WILL be canceled but I can see where it could happen. "IF people are so apathetic and don't want to be bothered and either accept it at face value that "The Government is protecting you" or just throws up their hands and says "there is nothing that can be done"...it could happen without much fanfare. I did read some of the German issue and it is much of what you described. If the benevolence of the current administation in its form of democracy takes a turn towards Martial Law...many would be caught flat footed and just say..."we cant do anything". Damn...I do hate the possibility but when I look at it....Im not sure the populace is aggressive enough to stop it. Because in this situation, as it was in Germany's case...would the population raise up and really do what had to be done or would they just hope everything will be OK? Apathy is a terrible thing...probably the worst thing. And now the question is...would people accept it without a fight? I think most would. And would the one's who do not accept it be enough?

Note to self: "I gotta quit reading and thinking...that shit is making me nuts".

[quote name='Abell9' date='Monday, 21 August 2006, 12:13 pm' post='69142']
I voted for Bush but the REAL truth is...if I thought the election was stolen and it was rigged, my entire belief system in democracy would be trashed.
You seem like a very smart guy. Why not pretend just for awhile that you SUSPECT this might have happened. Do a little Googling, a little reading and see what you come up with. It's important enough to deserve some unbiased inquiry. I listen to Rush regularly, you can tolerate a little Robt. Kennedy.

Thats the problem. The more I read the more jaundiced I become. The more jaundiced I become the madder I get. The madder I get the more dangerous I am....(no, Im not losing it)

Agreed Even before I came here I listened to NPR, Left Radio on Sirros ect...have pulled some writings reviewed a few books....like I told one of the board ladies....Im in a state of "Hummmmm" half the time, and WTF the rest. This aint no damned fun...it took me 22 years to get over my brother tellin me there wasnt a Sanata Claus and it took him 22 years to get over the ass whuppin I put on him for tellin me.

I'm willing to receive facts, thats all I require; facts. I just get tired of the seemingly infinite number of new conspiracy theories that are presented as fact, it tends to make you put your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la la la." I hear all kinds of allegations and accusations, I'm willing to beleive that an election can be rigged (I know they can) they have been rigged before, Mayor Daley of Chicago for example. I just want some hard evidence that Bush won due to election rigging.

Abell: I know how you feel. I was a Neo-Con when I came here. I voted for Bush in 00'. Truth is easier to swallow when it is coated in sugery lies.

CA: When did Bush win anything? He was appointed as President the first time and he gained the second time by default, meaning Kerry gave up and there was NO ONE ELSE standing in his way to be President.


Whether Bush stole the elections is trivil at this point compared to his current actions as our President. We need to focus more on a cure at this point, then focusing on who to blame. We already know who is at fault. We are.

What is interesting about "sheeple", and "lazy thinkers", and the "apathetic" is that most (not some, most) are working for some community or society-based cause to which they are strongly devoted and, they, like you, are baffled, offended and concerned that the rest of the community/country/world does not equally share that concern. Children's aid organizations, environmental causes, animal rights activists, homeless advocates, historical societies, arts supporters, domestic abuse networks, anti-descrimination organizations; all of these groups and thousands more like them have supporters who refer to those not actively working for their cause as apathetic, lazy and gullible, and they are no more broadly correct in that assessment than are any of you.

Humans have only so much bandwidth to devote to their activities, and the basics of survival in today's cultures demand an ever increasing share of that bandwidth. What remains is a limited ability to rally behind the thousands of important and noble causes about which we are all concerned on a daily basis;and make no mistake, Americans spend vast amounts of money and time on community causes chosen by personal experience and the personality of the individual. To suggest that people who do not devote their precious bandwidth to your particular cause are lazy or apathetic is arrogant in the extreme and worse, simply incorrect. Further, to lable them with so little respect virtually ensures that you will be unsuccessful at convincing them of the importance of those issues you see as critical.

The political mood of the American people is jangled with dissatisfaction, and nothing motivates change like dissatisfaction. The juggernaut of political opinion is shifting away from the neo-con goal as evidenced by polls that, when viewed broadly, most certainly do provide an accurate view of the people's perspective. This juggernaut of opinion is, in the absence of a defining moment like 9/11, slow to start, but once moving, equally slow to stop unless impacted by another defining moment. The neo-cons have played their hand and lost. The political climate shows that the majority of Americans are not buying into the fear game, and opinion as a result is slowly but inexorably moving against them. Should they do anything so foolish as to attempt the suspension of some of the most basic American tenets I strongly believe the juggernaut would see its next defining moment and move quickly against them. Their position is insufficiently supported for them to find success by anything so foolish as marshal law and the suspension of elections, and I beleive they know this. An over-stimulated and fragmented citizenry would quickly find a common cause behind which to rally.

Very well put, wize observation and it does throw another perspective into light. That being, people are doing and if the cause justifies it, they will turn their heads, do what they think is right, and go back to their lives.
You notice, I said "IF the people are so apathetic", in other words,...Im really not sure because...Im really not. I do not have my finger on the pulse of the community so to speak. When one reads, he/she reads stuff from the left or right, same iwth Radio ect....which doesnt necessarily reflect what the people are thinking. When I hear a politician say "What the American people WANT" is blah, blah, blah my eyes glaze over and narcaleptic tendancy come in to play. None the less Wine Goddess...good points all.

VT, nothing is more noble them are freedom to do as we please. A ever vigil must be kept on such a thing, otherwise it will slip from your grasb quicker then sand.

I am fully aware that most people could care less about this issue and they certainly believe someone else is watching over it for them. But is anyone really watching over it VT? Do you see people shifting focus at all, to view this horrid landscape that has become American Politics? Or will they be like CA and just go la la la la when they hear something they dont like, ignoring it, and only listening to what they wish to hear?

VT, you of all people, should know the sheepish nature of humans, for all they really wish to have is someone to follow. Plain and Simple. Unless you have data to prove otherwise?

You are aware of this, are you? And from what source do you gain this awareness, because that statement is pure foolishness.


You mean other than our elected officials, our courts and the officers of our legal system? While the neo-cons grab at power and attemtp to thumb their noses at our legal system and the Bill of Rights, such activity is catching up with them, as evidenced by court rulings charging their figurehead with "over-reaching" and engaging in "unconstitutional" actions. America is aware of the erosion of our civil liberties and it is part of the reason for this administration's low polling numbers.


Um, yes, I do. Is it possible that you've missed this? You claim to be informed, MM; don't you read the papers? Are you unaware of the dissatisfaction of the citizenry?


Me of all people?!? Why is that?

I do see much of human nature in my work and I can tell you from direct experience that people are most certainly not generally "sheepish". I see committed, hard-working folk who spend every waking moment evaluating their positions on everything from the fat content in their milk to the disciplinary measures employed with their children. These mindless followers of whom you speak are the people staffing crisis lines and building Habitat for Humanity housing, and they are wondering why people like you are so callous as to not be aiding these causes, how you can be so blind to the suffering and need of others that you selfishly spend your free time with a full belly, safe in your middle-class home playing on a computer. Are they right in their assessment of you, MM? No? By what set of data would you have that proved?

Are you not human? Oh, you are!
Then are you a sheeple? No, you're not?

Then you must be assuming you're some how superior to most every body else?
Basic logic at work here.


You can fool all of the people some of the time, or you can fool some of the people all of the time.
which means some people defy standard logic, all of the time. And all people defy standard logic, some of the time.


How do you measure your glass?

VT. What percent of voters turend out in your home state? The state next to it? I hear you talking about all these people and yes, I understand their view point. I understand that they feel they have unlimited freedom to build houses for the poor, make soup kitchens, and even have sponsered walks. They do all this because it makes them feel good to the fact they do nothing to stop large scale murder, large scale pollution, and large scale salughter of animals. Yes, some try to stop these things from happening, but you cant use a small minority to paint a pretty picture overall.


Where are all these disatisfied citizens everyone keeps speaking about in polls? Oh wait, you say this type of citizen inaction uprising has nevenr happen before and the population is finaling waking up! Did you ever take a history class? When has the population EVER been in lock step with its leaders?

YOu came back when some good points there VT, this website is full of links that prove me right about PNAC and their global conquest. I am still waiting for you to show me data wher the average American knows this and is doing there part. OH how about you show me what percent of the 382 million Americans alive that voted and do community service? Trying to call me names like middle class and lazy want do the trick. Show me these people, cause from where I am standing I just see sheep.

OH and Sky, when have I ever claimed greatness are anything above the mud in the gutter? You must be reading someone else posts, cause I am just glad enough to have a glass to put water in. Only greedy people care about how much they have.

Then becareful the broad generalizations.
Because we are them, and you are us.
Most people are not as stupid as your statements assume.

We need to be LESS about division and more about unity!

Sky, that is just my point. No one thinks anything is wrong right now and so they go about their day. They think they are too smart to be fooled into being sheep. They have this false assumtion that one must be ignorant or stupid to be fooled, but even the greatist men and women of their day have been fooled by the simplist of things.

By you accusing me of calling people stupid just because I say they are liken unto sheep just furthers the false assumption. You know very well I am not calling people stupid when I call them sheep, I am calling them followers of a false shepard.


Is American too proud a nation to admit what has happened? VT and Sky, I fully hope I am wrong and that you are both right, that America is waking up from its century long slumber.