The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Ike8477 on February 19, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
-
I have nothing to base this on other than intuition and my knowledge of U.S. history, but I believe that all Americans will have a serious decision to make at the end of Obama's second term. No, it won't be who to elect to the Presidenty. It will be what to do about a President who refuses to step down. I think it is doubtful that he will simply refuse to turn over his authority with no reason given. Instead, he will manufacture a "crisis" that we simply can't solve without the great one in power. There is precident for this (FDR in WWII) and don't think that this has been lost on Obama. If the economy goes in the tank before his term ends, he will have all the excuses he needs to stay in power indefinitely. Does anyone doubt that this is his goal? Well, time will tell but I am expecting him to make his play for ultimate power at some point. Remember where you heard it.
-
Ike you are joining an ever growing chorus of people who are concerned about just such an occurrence. We here will duly note your prediction but you aren't the first. This concern goes back possibly as far as his first inauguration. When I get home I'll try to remember to do a little research on when this first appeared.
-
Scary stuff!!! Guess we will have to wait and see.
-
I remember hearing towards the end of the first term that the 'team' was looking into what it would take to forgo further elections...have no ideal how reliable the source of that report was....
There might be a question about how to do it, but I can think of one way to stop it.
-
He would need to reverse a constitutional amendment. Put in place to prevent the FDR's of the future.
That isn't to say he can't use the cards in his minority, liberal, and Muslim deck. Somewhere in there he could find a way to break more laws.
After all its only the honorable, ethical, and moral who follow the laws that society dictates.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Does anyone doubt that this is his goal?
He's just a sock puppet. There's plenty more useful idiots around.
Why would the person doing the real planning need this bozo any more?
Different face, same agenda, same outcome and they can have the impression that it's all legit.
-
In order to to do this, first he would have to stockpile an awful lot of ammunition.
-
As Alf posted it has been discussed before, the 2 options are to overturn the 22 Amendment or declare Martial law and postpone elections until after the "emergency".
But it's still a bummer of a first post.
Welcome aboard anyway. ;D
-
Hey Tom, going to completely hijack the thread, and really don't care, cause hey, that's what we do here.
I just noticed on your tag that you show the Birthdate of America as 1775. Not to pick nits, but isn't the actual date July 4th 1776? The signing of the Declaration of Independance? Or am I missing something?
-
I just used the years, I could have used 11-06-2012
But I figure you are free as you are going to ever be when you start shooting at Govt officials.for a short time in April the highest earthly authority they had to answer to was their Captain.
-
I just used the years, I could have used 11-06-2012
But I figure you are free as you are going to ever be when you start shooting at Govt officials.for a short time in April the highest earthly authority they had to answer to was their Captain.
Wasn't it November 10, 1775?
I assume you're referring to Tun Tavern, right?
-
No, April 18th 1775 The fight at Lexington and Concord.
With in days they had begun the siege of Boston and organized into larger units then were formed into the Continental Army with an official chain of command that ran from the Private in the field up to the Continental Congress.
But for a few glorious hours between the 18th and 20th they answered to their local Commander and God.
-
Hi;
To further RESPEN33 's comment. Yes FDR had 4 elections and died just into his 4th term. There was a World War going on and the attitude was "don't change horses in the middle of the creek" , so FDR stayed. When he died and the country did the usual mourning - it was the Democrats that got the amendment so that future presidents only had 2 terms.
basically, the Dems loved and backed FDR - BUT they also were not sad to see him go.... The same will be with Barry.
There are some Dems that go with the party line but are now nervous with the 2014 elections coming up. If/When they loose - they can thank Barry for it.
-
No, April 18th 1775 The fight at Lexington and Concord.
Totally agree. Our country was born the day The People decided to act upon it, with no turning back. But didn't it take place at sunrise on April 19th?
-
Totally agree. Our country was born the day The People decided to act upon it, with no turning back. But didn't it take place at sunrise on April 19th?
Yup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
My only excuse is that I'm one of those people who would rather be an hour early than a minute late.
-
Thanks guys. I haven't studied my Revolutionary War history in awhile. Glad for the refresher. It's getting to be full on winter here, so I guess it's time to watch the History Channel series again.
-
I'm not as concerned with Omoron stepping aside as I am who will be shoved up our behinds to choose from on the side of the Party of Compromise. Every month we wait without having put in the framework to run a real deal, honest to God patriot at the States level, we lose the hope of at least a token of resistance..
I'm sorry, but try as we may, Allen West/Rand Paul will not be the nominees. The best we could hope for at this point would be a kool-aid poisoned Rubio..
Third Party candidates may never win, but it's the only honest choice we're gonna have..
If Omoron offers to stay, we'll be in a shooting war anyway, if we aren't already at that point..
-
I'm leery of Rubio, but based on what I have heard so far I could support him if he got the nomination.
-
My prediciton: Rubio vs. Clinton (H)
-
My prediciton: Rubio vs. Clinton (H)
The way the GOP is picking candidates, I would put my money on Boehner. >:(
-
My prediciton: Rubio vs. Clinton (H)
It is to early to even think about picking a Republican out of the list of possibles.
But I will say that the dems are extremely unlikely to nominate Hillary for the top spot, and VP is unlikely, but after an A Hole like Biden anything is possible.
The reasons are these,
1 She's getting up in years, dems like to appear to cater to the freshly indoctrinated youth so they will want some one younger
2 The same reason the GOP should forget about nominating Palin, Republicans have been finding fault with HC since the 1990's, the battle lines about her were drawn 20 years ago.
3 The dems do not rerun losers at the top of the ticket, and Hillary is a loser. As the former First lady, the most visible, best known candidate in either party, she began campaigning a year before the convention. But she got blown out of the water by a basically unknown half term Senator who's only claim to individuality was that he was black.
4 If nothing else stops her the concussion and blood clot that got her off the hook for Benghazi will come back in the form of questions about her health , maybe even about her mental capacity.
-
... If nothing else stops her the concussion and blood clot that got her off the hook for Benghazi will come back in the form of questions about her health , maybe even about her mental capacity.
What do you think the first one who points that out will be labeled as?..
It (obviously) doesn't have to make sense. It just has to stick..
Just as an aside, one of my (good on guns) Senators caved on Hagel..
He voted to acquit Bro Bill for lying to Congress too. (But not the Obstruction charge)..
I'm getting a feeling he gets a primary challenge from the right in 14, ater what is about to happen to DoD..
-
It is to early to even think about picking a Republican out of the list of possibles.
But I will say that the dems are extremely unlikely to nominate Hillary for the top spot, and VP is unlikely, but after an A Hole like Biden anything is possible.
The reasons are these,
1 She's getting up in years, dems like to appear to cater to the freshly indoctrinated youth so they will want some one younger
2 The same reason the GOP should forget about nominating Palin, Republicans have been finding fault with HC since the 1990's, the battle lines about her were drawn 20 years ago.
3 The dems do not rerun losers at the top of the ticket, and Hillary is a loser. As the former First lady, the most visible, best known candidate in either party, she began campaigning a year before the convention. But she got blown out of the water by a basically unknown half term Senator who's only claim to individuality was that he was black.
4 If nothing else stops her the concussion and blood clot that got her off the hook for Benghazi will come back in the form of questions about her health , maybe even about her mental capacity.
Yep. The Hildabeast is done. Too old and too much baggage. Mind you, she'll run and raise money, but that will be so she can influence the election. The one thing good you can say about the Dems over the GOP is that they aren't the "Its my turn" party. They don't run retreads. This is good as I still believe that BO doesn't give a shat about guns, he's just playing to the base and when the AWB goes down in flames he'll shrug his shoulders, breathe a sigh of relief, and get down to immigration reform/ammnesty that will cement a Dem majority. Hillary though, actively hates guns and would push hard for gun control beyond just giving speeches. I expect that the Dem field in 2016 will be determined by 2014. If the Blue dogs survive, they will be in the drivers seat as a national party. If they lose? Expect to see the liberal wing take over as a regional party.
-
Yep. The Hildabeast is done. Too old and too much baggage. Mind you, she'll run and raise money, but that will be so she can influence the election. The one thing good you can say about the Dems over the GOP is that they aren't the "Its my turn" party. They don't run retreads. This is good as I still believe that BO doesn't give a shat about guns, he's just playing to the base and when the AWB goes down in flames he'll shrug his shoulders, breathe a sigh of relief, and get down to immigration reform/ammnesty that will cement a Dem majority. Hillary though, actively hates guns and would push hard for gun control beyond just giving speeches. I expect that the Dem field in 2016 will be determined by 2014. If the Blue dogs survive, they will be in the drivers seat as a national party. If they lose? Expect to see the liberal wing take over as a regional party.
That happened 40 years ago when all the segregationists became liberals, like George Wallace and Robert Byrd.
I was looking for a list of former segregationists turned liberal that I had seen, but I found this from WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html
So what's missing?
There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."
There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.
Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading "In Through the Looking Glass": " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MUCH MORE AT LINK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<