And just what is your suggestion to protect citizens from imminent attack without finding ways to wiretap, check records? Come on - it is your responsibility to protect all Americans - now don't wiretap, don't look at any private records, don't search people, etc., etc. How are you going to do it? Please don't say - I would find some way. We were surprised 9/11 and who knew what other cells were making their moves for the next strike. Think, think, think.
2.Legislation increasing the federal hold on various powers normally delegated to the states. (Homeland Defense)
Homeland Defense suggests to the states - they don't have to follow the directives. Homeland Defense does not even have budgetary power, does not have a cabinet position.
3.Incumbant control of elections. (CFR)
Bush set out his goals for CFR - they were not followed. If he had vetoed, this would have been the hammer the Democrats used to say "See, Bush is against election reform because his cronies were so successul in getting him elected. He warned them that he would sign what they sent. The Congress is responsible for this mess - not Bush. Talk to your senators.
The decision was made to go with this version of campaign finance. They had the clause in place that parts could be thrown out if unconstitutional and the remainder stands. If CFR not done now would come back again and maybe pass under a more liberal supreme court. You may not agree but, hey, who can get 100% approval rating?
4. Increased ability to track the daily activites of individual citizens. (Cameras, smart card IDs, assorted biometric IDs and assorted tracking devices using GPS--all deemed necessary by a frightened public to track terrorists).
Yes, it is deemed necessary by a frightened public to track terrorists. Bush's number one job is to protect America. I have yet to see any great ways to find these terrorists without the ability to get information.
5.Decreases in soveriegnty brought about by insisting on working within the framework of the UN and trying to mold Canada/US/Mexico into one seemless entity.
I think this has nothing to do with the UN - this is for trade and to provide a stronger base of support for North America.
6.Spreading our own armed forces so thin that we'll have to rely on UN troops one of these days to help with the terrorists at home (Obviously that hasn't happened yet, but we're on the way.)
I see, looks like you want no efforts to fight the terrorists - why? Since when has the U.N. ever done anything to help us? (Except the surveillance flights right after the attack.)
7.Insuring a supply of oil by placating the muslim oil kingdoms with whatever they want--and maybe picking up some lucrative contracts for American companies and the Carlyle group along the way. (Securing oil for the country is certainly a valuable national security effort--but not when it comes to allowing the Islamics to work toward annihilation of Israel and conquest of the US.)
This is a direct result of our situation as dependent on Mideast Oil. Denying that fact of life does not make a man presidential material. You might contact Daschle and suggest he quit sitting on the ANWR drilling so that we can have some protection from the Mideast power hold on us. Your statement on contracts and the Carlyle group claim is merely trying to cast aspersions on Bush and is a bunch of unprovable slander.
8. To put it in a nutshell, there's a very good chance he's using all this to advance his daddy's dream of a NWO dominated by a one-world government.
Please explain to me how telling the UN that the U.S. will control how the American foreign aid money is spent and it will be given only to citizen elected government run countries in any way promote a NWO? We no longer will give our money for the U.N. to supply aid to those countries that hate us. Sounds like protecting the U.S. to me.
How does being willing to go-it-alone in the war in spite of advice to the contrary from the U.N. help in a NWO?
How does refusing to go along with the Kyoto treaty with the other countries help?
Again, you tend to ignore an awful lot of the Bush agenda to further your theories.
What was the matter, pray tell, with the laws we already had in place? We had warrants--issued by the judiciary on PROBABLE CAUSE--which not only afforded Constitutional protections, but actually worked pretty well. The idea of giving any police force the power to snoop and to rummage through anything they choose without any Constitutional protections guarantees there will be abuse. As for the wiretaps, the only valid complaint the DOJ had was having to get multiple warrants for every different phone a suspect used. That part could have been easily corrected without giving the Feds carte blanche to become the KGB. And they did need to be able to hold possible threats longer than the old three days.
As for the other searches, the SC has become lately enamored of the concept that all citizens are considered guilty until they can prove they are innocent.
And let's get to the real reason those searches are needed--the open borders, the negligence/ineptitude/corruption within the DOJ,FBI, INS, and State Department. Clean up those messes, and you won't have to subject the citizens to an ever-growing police state.
We were surprised 9/11 and who knew what other cells were making their moves for the next strike
Why? Bodansky knew about the terrorist cells. Emerson knew about the terrorist cells. We've been documenting info about the terrorist cells right here on FR since at least 1995. Arrest or deportation can be powerful preventive measures.
Homeland Defense suggests to the states - they don't have to follow the directives. Homeland Defense does not even have budgetary power, does not have a cabinet position.
No, they just have the responsiblity to lobby for co-ordinated legislation that comes in through the back door. The governors don't have to follow the directives, huh? What happens to a governor, especially a Republican one, who chooses to follow his own conscience when election time rolls around? Do you think he'll get any party support from the RNC if he bucks the president's handpicked man?
And the fact that it's not a cabinet position means Ridge can move without congressional scrutiny, does it not?
As for CFR, your point about the dims using a veto as a campaign issue is valid. I doubt that it would have gone anywhere, though. As I recall, the polls all showed that it wasn't much of a public concern. And I agree that the congress shares the blame.
Yes, it is deemed necessary by a frightened public to track terrorists. Bush's number one job is to protect America. I have yet to see any great ways to find these terrorists without the ability to get information.
How about we get the information before we let them into the country? How about we tighten the border control? How about when we find one who's slipped through, we deport his @$$ instead of quietly watching him build his network? Tracking visas should have been done a long time ago. But why do we have to track all citizens? If we come across a citizen who's part of a cell, how about we arrest him and try him?
The basic problem here is not that we didn't know these cells were here. The problem is we never did anything about it but watch them. So don't tell us you need to track us all in order to track the terrorists.
I think this has nothing to do with the UN - this is for trade and to provide a stronger base of support for North America.
I disagree. We don't need the UN's permission to do anything. It's nothing more than a mechanism for despots and whiners to drain the US of her strength and her resources. We're quite capable of making assorted agreements with our allies without the UN's permission, guidance, or intervention.
I see, looks like you want no efforts to fight the terrorists - why? Since when has the U.N. ever done anything to help us? (Except the surveillance flights right after the attack.)?
To say that I want no effort to fight the terrorists is ludicrous. I said I don't want the troops spread too thin. Under the current system of open borders and fear of offending the countries that send us their terrorists, we're leaving ourselves with no one to back us up if those concentrations of Islamics in our cities decide to start doing to us what they are doing to Israel. When you consistenly keep the national guard out of the country, who can you utilize in a real emergency?
It's really not that difficult to tell the Saudis and their cohorts--and especially people like Saddam Hussein, that they'd better invest in missle defense before they attack us again.
BTW,those AWACS were NATO rather than UN, IIRC,
As for our rediculous continued dependence on ME oil, I agree with you. It's inexcusable that we aren't drilling in ANWR this very moment. So why did we just give in?
Your statement on contracts and the Carlyle group claim is merely trying to cast aspersions on Bush and is a bunch of unprovable slander.
I disagree. Do a web search and see what you come up with. And do one on Occidental just to keep it bipartisan.Both parties seem equally adept at utilizing revolving doors.
Please explain to me how telling the UN that the U.S. will control how the American foreign aid money is spent and it will be given only to citizen elected government run countries in any way promote a NWO? We no longer will give our money for the U.N. to supply aid to those countries that hate us.
We've already given our money (which we didn't owe, BTW) to the UN. The Millineum fund that you refer to is an EXTRA $5 billion above and beyond the money we give to the UN, the IMF, and World Bank. So we're finally puting some strings on that one. Why should we be giving any extra at all? Someday we're going to learn that we can't buy friends.
How does being willing to go-it-alone in the war in spite of advice to the contrary from the U.N. help in a NWO?
Who says we're going to go it alone? I expect there'll be help, though it won't be from the Saudis. (We're still pretending that the Arab League didn't really mean it when they said "no".)
How does refusing to go along with the Kyoto treaty with the other countries help?
He hasn't rejected the Kyoto Treaty--he says he plans to implement it. He just wants a few changes.
Believe it or not, I hope you turn out to be right. I hope that 10 years from now I can look back at all this and laugh at all my suspicions. But so far, all I see is an expanded federal government with expanded police powers and no letup in sight of the flow of money and resources out of the US. The one positive sign that I see so far is that, as of today, we've avoided another 9/11.