Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Which Way to the Camps?
Modern Conservative ^ | February 3, 2009 | Gina L. Diorio

Posted on 02/03/2009 12:43:05 PM PST by history_48

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Tublecane

Plus, unlike European Jewry, we have guns and are willing to use them.

We won’t have guns if zer0, Holder and Emmanuelle have their say about it and if some people are stupid enough to hand them over.


61 posted on 02/03/2009 2:14:40 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: shoutingandpointing

That’s one hell of a post. Herman Goering, ugh. BTTT!


62 posted on 02/03/2009 2:16:29 PM PST by Pagey (B. Hussein Obama has no experience running anything, except his pedestrian mouth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MahatmaGandu
Assuming it can't happen here is one of the surest ways to assure that it does.

Exactly! When you have someone like zer0 in there, and have actually researched his ideology and not just listened to the MSM, you know that he has puppet masters that would love to see this happen. zer0 hates America. He has never shown anything but disgust for this country. He constantly berates it, as does his stupid gorilla of a wife. If America isn't just as THEY want it to be, they have no use for her.

63 posted on 02/03/2009 2:18:53 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: history_48
My, I'm glad this bill was introduced by a radical Democrat. If it had been a conservative Republican, it would have been "fascist!"

[/sarcasm]

64 posted on 02/03/2009 2:26:20 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator ('Ashirah leHaShem ki ga'oh ga'ah, sus verokhevo ramah vayam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Yes, I have read the damn bill, it is not a concentration camp.. jeeze.

And perhaps you could enlighten us as to the difference between one of these 0bamunist 'camps' and a 'concentration' camp?
65 posted on 02/03/2009 2:26:32 PM PST by mkjessup ("Mein herr, I tell you that we all believed the Jews were moved for their own protection, ja wohl!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Is this a big deal? Everyone already expects the executive to act in urgent situations. The president can wage war for 90 days without Congressional approval.

It's unconstitutional, so yes, it's very big deal. The federal government must wait for the State to request assistance:

Article. IV., Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

'and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive' is talking about the State governments.

At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority;
William Rawle

-----

BTW - The waging of war is an external power, not an internal one.

66 posted on 02/03/2009 2:27:22 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am not a political, public, collective, corporate, administrative or legal entity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
BTW - The waging of war is an external power, not an internal one.

The Branch Davidians should have reminded General Wesley Clark and the United States Army about that.
67 posted on 02/03/2009 2:30:37 PM PST by mkjessup ("Mein herr, I tell you that we all believed the Jews were moved for their own protection, ja wohl!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
And perhaps you could enlighten us as to the difference between one of these 0bamunist 'camps' and a 'concentration' camp?

If you don't know the simple difference between authorizing military bases as staging points in case of a disaster and historical implications of 'concentration camps', providing you with a hundred resources would just go over your head. There is nothing in this bill that makes this an internment nor concentration camp. All this is based on speculation of what it could be used for, and those could guesses are just about as accurate as someone guessing they could be made into an amusement park... Take it at face value and make sure it doesn't change.

68 posted on 02/03/2009 2:31:59 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
The Branch Davidians should have reminded General Wesley Clark and the United States Army about that.

Because Ann Richards gave permission to the federal government to enter the State of Texas. Otherwise, they couldn't have.

69 posted on 02/03/2009 2:33:17 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am not a political, public, collective, corporate, administrative or legal entity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“BTW - The waging of war is an external power, not an internal one.”

As if that makes a difference, Constitutionally speaking. Warmaking powers are supposed to lie with Congress, not the president. Informal amendments have changed that.

Likewise with various “internal powers” of the federal government. Certainly, our federal government adopted a slew of extra-Constitutional authority during the Civil War, and not just in the rebel states. I don’t think I need to list all the usurpations of state sovereignty undertaken by the feds as regards drugs, firearms, cults, militias, civil rights, etc.


70 posted on 02/03/2009 2:34:39 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“Because Ann Richards gave permission to the federal government to enter the State of Texas. Otherwise, they couldn’t have.”

Did Wallace give Eisenhower the right to use the National Guard?


71 posted on 02/03/2009 2:36:57 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

This can be easily summarized:

You trust the federal government.

I don’t.


72 posted on 02/03/2009 2:38:29 PM PST by mkjessup ("Mein herr, I tell you that we all believed the Jews were moved for their own protection, ja wohl!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Did Wallace give Eisenhower the right to use the National Guard?

That was Faubus. And Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard.
73 posted on 02/03/2009 2:39:31 PM PST by mkjessup ("Mein herr, I tell you that we all believed the Jews were moved for their own protection, ja wohl!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Psychologically, we humans tend to be alarmingly pliable. The danger for us lies in our society's having moved from “information seekers” to “information consumers.” We take everything as packaged at face value. Far too few ask "WHY?" anymore. It's all about the "Who? What? When? and Where?" Easily determined, labeled, distributed. Science, not thought.

The pendulum has swung, and we are living the flip-side of the Dark Ages coin. Scary stuff. "Philosophy: the Art of Wondering." I grew up with the "Philosophy bakes no bread" saw. Fortunately for me, it was always followed with "And why do you suppose that is?" lol We no longer value healthy skepticism. Consensus is king and anyone who dares veer from the “set up for success” pathway is a heretic. God help you if you raise your hand and ask a legitimate question. It is a most unsafe world where answers are an end unto themselves and not a means to greater questions.

Take the easy and likable ride on the group-think bandwagon? Not me. I'll walk, thank you.

Two oldies but goodies worth revisiting in the context of this thread:

The infamous Stanford Prisoner Experiment of 1971
http://www.prisonexp.org/legnews.htm

and Jane Elliot's “Blue Eyes / Brown Eyes” Exercise”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

74 posted on 02/03/2009 2:42:30 PM PST by shoutingandpointing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I don’t trust the federal government, I trust the collective power of the United States, including our Armed Forces to not let the worst case scenario that people are fearing happen. Our troops will not turn on citizens en-mass. Our citizens will not accept en-mass internment based on political opposition. The bill reads as it does, it only deals with authorizing land use for staging in the event of emergencies, it in no way designates nor outlines the use for internment, it doesn’t authorize the division, identification, rounding up, nor internment of citizenry. We become so paranoid, that every day events suddenly all seem like conspiracies. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


75 posted on 02/03/2009 2:42:58 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Our troops will not turn on citizens en-mass

You personally guarantee that eh?
76 posted on 02/03/2009 2:49:36 PM PST by mkjessup ("Mein herr, I tell you that we all believed the Jews were moved for their own protection, ja wohl!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

“And Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard.”

That was kinda my point. I was under the impression that the militias are undere the authority of state governors unless they are called into federal service in times of Congressionally-sanctioned war or national emergency. Eisenhower stepped over the governor’s authority without his permission, and without an emergency. Seems to me to be a perfect example of a violation of state sovereignty.


77 posted on 02/03/2009 2:49:57 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I believe that far more than I believe they would turn on the citizens en-masse, yes. Do you think so little of the men and women in our armed forces to believe they would?


78 posted on 02/03/2009 2:51:26 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

“Our troops will not turn on citizens en-mass”

Already happened during the Civil War.

“Our citizens will not accept en-mass internment based on political opposition”

Sorta already happened with Japanese internment. It was based on supposed, not actual, opposition. But close enough.

Aside from those points, I agree with you.


79 posted on 02/03/2009 2:53:18 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: shoutingandpointing
Thank you for your comments. I agree with them.  I'll check out those links.

Hudson sings the Star Spangled Banner
at Superbowl XLIII - 2009  Sellect HD


80 posted on 02/03/2009 2:54:54 PM PST by DoughtyOne (D1: Home of the golden tag line: FBI cuts off CAIR for contact with Hamas, Obama wants to talk to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson