I just thought of an interesting theory about Americas economy!!

You know how the years before WW2 germany was in a bad economic shape as other countries were. So leaders used that to their advantage to tell the people of the country that if they were in control they would make the country better.

Well that seems like what is happening in america now. I know America isnt in a horable economic faliure like it was during the great depresion, but it is not at it's high.

If the NWO or the illuminati want to make the world ruled by one government, then it would be the perfect plan to have a leader in america that is given more power because of the situation America is in.

FDR was given more power during WW2, and now america might start a war with iraq. So bush might declare marshal law, or any other law that takes away the rights of the people. The american people would blindly say ok since they would be at war with iraq and think the government knows the best decisions to make.

Now i am an American citizen and i would not blindly listen and follow whatever the government said.

Remeber this is just a theory i have!!!!

Okay... do they still cover the Marshall Plan and martial law in civics and government classes in high school? At one time they did.

In either case, you mean 'martial law' and it's one of those 'knee-jerk' shrieks of some of the more foo-foo sites that assume the American government can order soldiers in to take over the whole country. In real practice, martial law is declared in a LOCAL situation, where there's possibility of looting or huge numbers of casualties and the LOCAL GOVERNMENT asks for the National Guard and Army/military troops to help guard areas (like power plants) and check on the citizens, do search and rescue, and guard banks and other facilities from looting (if there's rioting.)

The number of personnel needed to do a MINIMAL job is fairly high, and they can only protect some of the areas; not cover every home in the area.

There is no way that America as a whole could be put under Martial Law. You don't have enough military personnel in all the combined armies of the world (friendly and hostile) to do that.

Secondly, you seem to think that Bush has a plan. In truth, as an article in Esquire written by one of Bush's former aides pointed out, the "Machiavellian Mayberry" has NO plan. Bush just spouts something off and the staff rush to make a plan to deal with it.

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20021202/ts_nm/ bush_aide_dc_2
(Bush apparently called him and asked for an apology and got it. The publisher says he stands by the information in the article and has the emails to prove this.)

So you're giving a lot of credit to a politician (I'm so familiar with him since I'm a Texan. I have no respect for the man and no respect for his leadership.) who's basically a brainless twit; a loose cannon running around and shooting his policies off at anything that rises to his targeting level.

He's a typical Charismatic Leader; long on charm, short on followthrough (as Texas found out), who always managed to be somewhere else (usually campaigining) when something came up.

Originally posted by Byrd
Okay... do they still cover the Marshall Plan and martial law in civics and government classes in high school? At one time they did.

No...the marshall plan is now Air lifting food to a surrounded Berlin, and good luck in discovering anything about Martial law in High School.

It is funny, people think that Soldiers are emotionless Robots. But America has been under Martial Law before during the Civil War if I'm not mistaken? And in either case, it HAD suspended Habeus Corpus.

Also look at Soviet Union, now there is a nation where it cared NOTHING about its people. And even they could not TAKE over the government through Martial Law. The Soldiers just upped and said, "SCREW YOU POLIT BURO, Killing Hungarians is one thing but RUSSIANS IS NOT ON OUR BOOKS, NOR WILL IT EVER BE!"

I agree with Byrd, martial law, nor military take over can occur in america. Aside from the fact that the Military's loyalties still lie to their families, a lot of people in this country still possess firearms of all sorts.

Only in the movies does the heartless soldier that supports NWO-like regiems exist, in reality, the NWO would have to force the soldiers to fight their own families, only one other nation on earth attempted this, ROME. And because of it Rome had lost a standing army that was roman, forced to rely on mercenaries Rome lost the "war" it forever prepared for but never came, through an invasion of barbarians.

Rome forever prepared for Civil War, in the end it never had to fight a war against brothers, legion against legion yes, but their soldiers were as human as anyone, and wouldn't turn their swords to their civilians any more effectively than the Russians, or America ever could.

Where's George Washington when you need him? Oh and it is quite interesting, since George Washington and General Laffayett had to "crack down" on a few rebellions, with what today would seem like the enslavement of all of america. But as we all see, we are quite free, whether Bush is a bafoon or not is not mine to judge. But the needs of democracy sway like a branch in the wind, but when the winds die down the branch is always steady.

Sincerely,
no signature

It is indeed wise to distinguish between Marshall Plan�s and Martial Law�s!
An interesting point, at the heart of which is this: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." U.S. Const., Art. I, s. 9, cl. 2.
Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus (it�s debatable whether that is synonymous with martial law �I�d argue not) but once the war was over the courts made the position clear. Ex parte Milligan of 1866 ( worth a search if your constitutional history is rusty),where the ruling was made by the Supreme Court that martial law (military tribunals, in this case) could not be imposed if civilian courts were in operation, is the crucial reference.
Arguably the Enemy Alien Acts were a sort of martial law (Japanese, Germans etc.); but again- probably not conclusively so.
The key, clear case of martial law was in Hawaii in WWII ( and we recall, of course, that Hawaii was then a territory not a state). The key decision was in Duncan v Kahanamoku (and this, too, is worth a search).
So, while one can imagine brief, territorially limited, �special measures� � in Canada in 1970 Trudeau imposed something similar as an anti-terrorist measure (a search on October Crisis + Canada should get you that) � being imposed: there is nothing to suggest a President could ever impose martial law legitimately in the USA. And if it were imposed illegitimately, it would hardly matter what it was called, as law would have already broken down.

Read this thread:

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

I swear Bush thought that the Mayberry Machivelli's were Italians living next door to Andy Griffin!


Byrd...if people only heard Molly Ivins screaming, huh?
How folks refused to look at the shambles he left your poor state in after two terms as Govenor and STILL REFUSED to notice that the Idiot was out campaigning for Republicans or out at Kennebunkport/Crawford/Camp David more than he was IN THE OFFICE RUNNING THE COUNTRY DURING WAR & RECESSION, will be eternally lost on me.

HI.
Spring semester starts back up in two days... Will all the hard work and studying to be come a Chiropractor be worth it if Dubya ends up getting us killed? Lol.

This much I know full well...work was plentiful during the Clinton Administration.
After all, Clinton was a "Real" Bonesman - if only a Palladian One.