AHHHHHH!!!! UNDER ATTACK BY HOMEGROWN CELLS!!!
Posted on 07/09/2004 9:12:26 PM PDT by FairOpinion
SPEARFISH -- Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Thursday that he was very concerned about homeland security issues in the face of what he called the most sobering terror report he had heard recently.
The United States is tightening security in the face of a steady stream of intelligence indicating an attack aimed at disrupting elections, the White House said Thursday.
The Department of Homeland Security is addressing the threat and has efforts underway to ''ramp up security,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.
"It is absolutely essential for the U.S. Senate to turn its attention to what we can do to make America safe," Daschle said.
Of particular concern are the nation's borders and ports, Daschle said, and there are security issues unresolved as the homeland security appropriations are "hung up" in the Senate.
Asked if the timing of the terror concerns might be aimed at stealing political thunder from the announcement of John Edwards as the democratic vice presidential candidate, Daschle replied, "The report is so sobering and so serious that I cannot bring myself to believe anyone in this administration would use this for political purposes."
Daschle said the most recent terror briefing was the second this week and contained information that there is a higher threat than there has been at any time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Texas has four good neighbors.If terrorist types want to run,they'd best head South.
There is no legal mechanism in this country for delaying presidential elections, not even by one day. They must be held on November 2. If something happened to disrupt the convention and/or cause the death of the President, the surviving delegates (and any replacement delegates so named by the GOP) could hold a binding nomination vote in any number of ways: Reconvene in person at some location, vote by mail, vote by email, even have a giant conference phone call with each state's delegation phoning in from a gathering point in each state. The only real problem would be the fight over who to nominate. Once new candidates were chosen, the elections would then be held on November 2 as scheduled.
If there were some catastrophic event somewhere in the U.S. just before or on November 2, my guess is one of the following would happen:
(a) Elections would be held as scheduled, everywhere possible. Whatever states failed to collect all their precincts' ballots, for whatever reason, would have their electoral votes thrown out as invalid by Congress when it convenes to count the EVs on January 6. They would then determine for themselves what the proper "counting" of each screwed-up state's electors should be, as allowed by the Constitution and relevant federal law. (Needless to say, if the unquestionable results from all other states produce a result close enough that Congress's actions would itself determine the winner, expect legal maneuverings that would make Florida 2000 look like a walk in the park.)
(b) If something crazy enough happened to make most elections nationwide impossible to hold on November 2, but we still had a functioning nation afterwards (imagine a terrorist attack that took out the nation's entire power grid for a few days, instead of a mess of dirty bombs all going off across the country at the same time), Congress would meet as soon as possible afterwards and pass a new law to designate a later election date, which would be signed by the President and then signed off on by the Supreme Court, which would prevent anyone from making any legal challenge to it. (Having the Supreme Court preemptively disallow any challenge would be somewhat outside the realm of its Constitutional authority, but given that the alternative would be something like martial law, I don't believe that the American public would put up with any freaks trying to sabotage the plan.)
(And before anyone asks, yes, I know Congress could put a line in its bill saying that the new law could not be questioned by the Supreme Court. But given the current state of American jurisprudence, I don't believe for a moment that the some federal court somewhere wouldn't try to interfere anyway, given the ex post facto nature of such a new law. We'd have to have the Supreme Court sign off on it and openly refuse to accept any legal challenge to it the moment it was signed into law. At such a point, the intent would be to instill the new election date as "legitimate" in the minds of the American public, not dabble in hyperlegal niceties.)
And if they couldn't get the new election settled by January 20, I believe Section 3 of the 20th Amendment remains valid, which states that the sitting Vice President would serve as Acting President until things could get straightened out.
I noticed it but thought it was due to the long 4th of July weekend. Hadn't considered that it might be part of increased scrutiny. Then again, I understand they really don't check much of anything anyway (impossibly high volume - rather, they rely on shipping co's statements regarding controls).
Dude, you are running around in circles trying to reason with nopardons. Just go through her post history and you'll see what I mean. Don't waste your time, she's a lost cause.
"I think the American people have gotten too complacent and cynical about the terror warnings"
Many Americans have become complacent and cynical about America. A landslide win for Bush in the fall is the only cure.
Maybe. I pray I'm wrong but I worry that the next hit will involve kids.
Don't take this wrong because I do support the president but I believe the border issue could be a big problem for him. No telling what the adm. doing quietly and how many bad guys have been stopped but because we don't see this and we are bombarded daily with illegal crossing issues, if a terrorist comes across people will be screaming the borders should have been closed. It wouldn't surprise me , if I heard that GB enemies hadn't already geared up to attack him on this if it happens. JMO
Half of my family are Latino. All of us fervently reject any proposals for amnesty for illegal immigrants. It is an absolute slap in the face for those of our family who worked so hard to become legally citizens and residents here. All the years of waiting, all the lawyers fees, all of the dissappointment and heartbreak of seperation and finally the payoff of reunity as a family, BUT BY THE LAW.
All of this would have been a waste of time. It is a despicable insult.
It's not a racist thing obviously, it's a "respect" thing. Lack of respect for our laws isn't a great way to start as a citizen. I've seen dirt poor people come here and do it legally, all the way to citizenship. Why are illegals now "too good" to obey the law? If our laws aren't good enough for them, then why are they here to begin with? Better life? Not for long with their attitude.
I think they will hit a bunch of cities in the red zone of the U. S. map, not the big cities on the coasts in the blue zones. The blue zones are their friends. It will be in the red heartland.
According to Limbaugh yesterday, Kerry was offered a special briefing on this last week and Kerry refused. Too busy. Real CinC material there, eh?
Not discounting this, but the
President was relaxed, jovial
& politically "on fire" in PA
yesterday. If it's so dire,
wonder why???
Since the two Johns and most of the top elite rats hate our military and our intel, they should be responsible for protecting/defending themselves.
Let them show us how they will protect us if elected by protecting/defending themselves.
The first really smart thing I've read on this thread. What happens depends on what they have to use against us. If they have several nukes ( and I do not believe they do )they will hit several cities at the same time. I would think NY during the President's convention speech would be target number one. If they pass that up they do not have a weapon.
Radiological or conventional bombs change everything. Remember the arab wants to make a statement. They want to kill people and do it in a place that everyone in the mostly uneducated arab world knows about. Striking at mid America does not seem to suit their needs unless they can launch attacks on several places at once. If they can only try a few attacks NY, Washington, LA, Vegas remain the prime targets. Things that would change that list are big events like the Super Bowl or World Series.
I really believe if we get past the election without a nuke, it will prove they do not yet have one.
"IMHO, and it is only my opinion, no matter what the terrorists do, it is only going to backfire on them. This is not Spain, and Americans for the most part aren't a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys. Spain and the rest of the Euro-trash may cave to the violence, but from what I know of my fellow Americans, it only strengthens our resolve."
I don't share your optimism. Dem/libs will go to their graves cursing/hating their fellow Americans who vote republican or call themselves conservative.
Even in the face of the most devastating, horrific, carnage wrought by terrorists, to our nation...dem/libs will point their boney finger, flesh melting from nuclear blast effect...and with their dying breath...spew hatred upon their fellow Americans..."It's all your fault!"
(DIRTY BOMB) "Well, most Houstonians would probably be dead or dying."
Dirty Bombs don't affect much beyond the conventional explosive blast radius. Maybe a few blocks for a big big boom. Cleanup's a bitch, though.
"fornication... intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. "
Aw, Las Vegas isn't so bad...
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.