🚀 go-pugleaf

Think about the implications of this: Nat'l Guard in Iraq, NorthCom HERE.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112#4790272

This is EXTREMELY important - we must understand NorthCom, one of the
official missions of which is to administer martial law when it is declared.
And it can be declared by the President for "civil unrest."

By the way, this is why I believe one of the goals of the policies of the
Administration in this disaster was to CREATE enough "civil unrest" in
protest for their blatantly racist, murderous policies that it could be
hyped and fabricated into an excuse for widespread martial law - for our own
"protection." The more "lootersT" and scary, endlessly shown TV clips of
angry faces, preferably dark faces, and the more likely enough people would
be frightened to accept this step.



http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_18...

The Bush Administration's "Enabling Act"

January 24, 2005 Issue

{Italicized in the original} In early December, without a word of public
notice, the Justice Department placed on its website a lengthy September 25,
2001 memorandum entitled "The President's Constitutional Authority to
Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them."
That document sets out, on behalf of the Bush administration, a plainly
totalitarian view of presidential power.

(snip)

Reviewing the specific text of the Constitution, the Yoo memo makes the
interesting discovery that "these provisions vest full control of the
military forces of the United States in the President." In fact, Congress,
not the president, is authorized "To raise and support armies . To provide
and maintain a navy . provide for calling forth the militia...." It is
Congress, not the president, that is given the power "To make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces...." Those elements
of the militia that are "employed in the service of the United States" are
to be trained "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The Yoo memo's treatment of congressional power to declare war is similarly
dishonest. "During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification,
the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict
had long been understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch,"
claims the document. This is true only in the sense that the King of Great
Britain - that government's chief executive - claimed and exercised that
power.


Call, fax, EMail, or write your representatives TODAY! Tommorrow may be too
late!