Check out some similar questions!

magprob · May 24, 2007, 08:13 AM

President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.

WorldNetDaily: Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers

mr.yet · May 24, 2007, 08:21 AM

Echos of Hilter, he position himself in about the same way.

magprob · May 24, 2007, 08:33 AM

Boy, that is fur sure! I am really getting quite concerned as to just exactly what this guy really has up his sleeve. This new law will allow him to take total control of the U.S. and even suspend the next election if he sees fit. I mean total control. It has always been said that the Bush family wants to be the Royal family of the U.S. I am starting to really believe that!

mr.yet · May 24, 2007, 08:53 AM

It's amazing how many people don't even care about what the president is doing to their rights.

It seems more and more the this president is running the same plan as Hilter did.

Well if the people in this country don't open their eyes SOON, they will see what he means to be a slave for the one man.

mr.yet · May 24, 2007, 09:44 AM

So, now the Presdient has take the US Constitution and tossed it out. No more separation of power.

So, now any loosely declared national emergency the president now take control of all government and business activities until his declare emerency is over.

So, one man now controls the country, is would have to say it speaks of Dictatorship, not a republic.

So, people are we going to be a country where one can be free, pursue happiness and enjoy life, or are we going to become a country under a DICTATOR??

Does anyone have a opinion??

Skell · May 24, 2007, 04:36 PM

Wow, that is very concerning. How does a supposed country that boasts as being the true example of Democracy allow such a thing to happen? Hmmmmmnn

magprob · May 24, 2007, 06:33 PM

I emailed the link for the bill to my state reps and asked them if they know what is going on. It will take a while but the word is that congress doesn't know anything about this. It was done behind closed doors, signed and pushed through in complete private. This is really bad folks. This is bad.

Skell · May 24, 2007, 06:41 PM

Surely if you have found and read this link then someone of some importance that was against it knew about it at some point. Why has no one come out publicly against it? Or has someone?

RichardBondMan · May 24, 2007, 07:35 PM

His signing the Presidential directive is nothing new. It's been done for years by other Presidents both Democratic and Republican although admittedly, Bush has issued more such directives that other President's. But we have not had incidents such as 9/11 where almost 3,000 people lost their lives since Pearl Harbor - it's a different world now as most would agree. I would want all our efforts, both governmental and private sector directed toward remedying, for example, detonation of a suitcase nuclear weapon. Any President, whether, Democratic or Republican would have my support. I believe we have too many checks and balances in our system for abuse of power by the President.

Fr_Chuck · May 24, 2007, 07:46 PM

Yep you guys are really on the wrong side, when he takes over all of those people who spoke bad against him will be sorry. Us supporters will get our place of honor

But the president has always had the rights to declare national emergany and have had powers to do so, Just as governors do for their states.

magprob · May 24, 2007, 07:53 PM

It appears as though this directive puts an end to those checks and balances.

RichardBondMan · May 24, 2007, 07:59 PM

If he were to abuse this power, one way he could be stopped would be for the Supreme Court to declare his directive illegal. I am sure there are other ways but I am no constitutional lawyer. Checks and balances have worked pretty well for the last 230 or so years.

Fr_Chuck · May 24, 2007, 08:37 PM

Hard to do when the military has the court closed for their own safety,
And they are all wisked away to a undeclosed locatoin for their safety.

All those new secret prisons have to be for someone?
All no one will be laughing at all of those new world order people then?

I was thinking of that new title, Director of World Religions, Or it may be a new denomination, "Bushology"

ordinaryguy · May 24, 2007, 08:39 PM

I'd say Cheney's the one to watch. George wouldn't know what to do with dictatorial powers if he had them, but D!ck would. It almost sounds like his "succession to the presidency" is a foregone conclusion. Quoting from the Directive:

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

magprob · May 24, 2007, 08:47 PM

Had to spread it around Padre but you got it right. Bushology: The extreme worship of complete earthly power and washed in the oil of the prince of Saudi Arabia. Not the Blood of the Prince of Peace.

magprob · May 24, 2007, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I'd say Cheney's the one to watch. George wouldn't know what to do with dictatorial powers if he had them, but D!ck would. It almost sounds like his "succession to the presidency" is a foregone conclusion. Quoting from the Directive:

The part that says "others" is what scares me. Don't forget Daddy!

ordinaryguy · May 25, 2007, 10:58 AM

Lest anyone think a palace coup is out of the question, here's a little something from The Washington Note

Excerpts:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e. not ballistic missiles).

The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.

modular01 · May 25, 2007, 11:06 AM

Don't even get me started on the gas prices, and what hand Dubya has in that. Kind of coincidental that he has stake in oil, and all of his friends do. And OPEC cutting production to keep the demand high is ty too. No wonder why the economy is going to hell. I may not have liked the whole sex scandal that Bill Clinton was involved in, but at least our economy was strong when we were in office.

magprob · May 25, 2007, 01:47 PM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address. The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue.

The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With oil as the prize, this is a win-win deal for all... all the greedy rich!:mad:

RubyPitbull · May 26, 2007, 05:10 AM

I can't find any news stories on this. Screw sending it to your state reps. I have just sent the directive to Tim Russert and I am going to sending it to every news organization I can find. If it gets airplay, it will become an issue to our reps.

If Bush uses this to bypass the next presidential election, you can be guaranteed, the damage to the Republican party will be of astronomical proportions.