The Patriots

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
I saw an interesting movie yesterday and this man was one of the panelists discussing what had just transpired during that movie. So this morning I googled him and found this:

The Patriots

By Dr. Bob Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.


The United States is in trouble. We're in danger of becoming a fascist dictatorship where big government and big business combine to rule, and where the people are considered just a source of labor. The marriage of government and the investor class has succeeded in exporting our jobs, importing illegal aliens to provide a pool of cheap labor, and thus driving down wages for all American workers and destroying the middle class. Their foreign and military policies have led us into unnecessary wars of aggression to gain raw materials and enhance profits of the global robber barons. Their trade policies have resulted in capital flight, job loss, trade deficits, and the ownership of much of our infrastructure by foreign interests.

We've gotten into this fix because our presidents, of both parties, have been servants of the global investors, and because our representatives in Congress, again of both parties, have abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities and subjected themselves to an imperial presidency.


...snip

Accordingly, "The Patriots" is not a political party, but a nonpartisan organization of patriotic Americans seeking to return our country to Constitutional government based on truth and in service of the people. For now, we operate as a project of the non-profit Institute for Space and Security Studies, a 501c(3) organization. Our immediate mission is to educate the American people on the issues. In the future, we may form a "Patriot PAC" to support candidates for public office and to promote specific legislation. We also intend to form a Patriot Caucus including members of Congress from all political parties. However, for now we are concentrating on public education.

The first question usually raised is, "Is this organization conservative or liberal?" The answer to that question is, "Yes." We have both conservative and liberal members, and both conservative and liberal ideas. But mostly, we are just patriotic Americans embodying the best of both conservatism and liberalism in the service of the American people. Few Patriots will agree with all of the following positions, but all ascribe to the basic devotion to Constitution, truth, and service to the people. That is what is important. The specific policy positions below are mine alone. I see them as a good basis for further discussion. They are all anathema to those currently in power.

...snip
Are YOU a patriot?
 

loosecannon

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,888
Reaction score
269
Points
48
Interesting concept, obviously the Tally Ho Ho Ho crowd is gonna have trouble getting behind a group that will include Hagels and Pauls as well as Edwards and Obamas.

It kinda goes against the grain of the established group think.

Partisans are always full of shit to some degree.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Interesting concept, obviously the Tally Ho Ho Ho crowd is gonna have trouble getting behind a group that will include Hagels and Pauls as well as Edwards and Obamas.

It kinda goes against the grain of the established group think.

Partisans are always full of shit to some degree.
What I found interesting was being reminded of a bit of history this afternoon. Did you know Hitler set about taking complete control by first legislating a consolidation of power in the event of national emergency, then creating an emergency?

I had forgotten it.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
What I found interesting was being reminded of a bit of history this afternoon. Did you know Hitler set about taking complete control by first legislating a consolidation of power in the event of national emergency, then creating an emergency?

I had forgotten it.
Your point? And Hitler did a bit more than that AND had his own army. He was raised to power just a few years after being convicted of Treason and imprisoned. The people in "the know" thought he was controllable.

Do some research on Stalin, you will find he too came to power because no one thought he was dangerous.

There is no one in this country with the kind of opportunity and resources Stalin and Hitler had, well the liberals through the democratic party have a strong presence in the rank and file of the Government work force, but they are not likely to be willing to support an overt Coup. There is a strong Conservative presence in the Military, but again, highly unlikely our military would support a coup.
 
OP
TheStripey1

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
Interesting concept, obviously the Tally Ho Ho Ho crowd is gonna have trouble getting behind a group that will include Hagels and Pauls as well as Edwards and Obamas.

It kinda goes against the grain of the established group think.

Partisans are always full of shit to some degree.
speak for yourself, dimbulb. I'll be going to see Dr Bowman speak, maybe you should climb out of your self imposed exile and join me.

nahhhhh, you might learn something.
 
OP
TheStripey1

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
What I found interesting was being reminded of a bit of history this afternoon. Did you know Hitler set about taking complete control by first legislating a consolidation of power in the event of national emergency, then creating an emergency?

I had forgotten it.
Yep... the burning of the Reichstag (sp)... are you hip to False Flag operations?
 
OP
TheStripey1

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
Your point? And Hitler did a bit more than that AND had his own army. He was raised to power just a few years after being convicted of Treason and imprisoned. The people in "the know" thought he was controllable.

Do some research on Stalin, you will find he too came to power because no one thought he was dangerous.

There is no one in this country with the kind of opportunity and resources Stalin and Hitler had, well the liberals through the democratic party have a strong presence in the rank and file of the Government work force, but they are not likely to be willing to support an overt Coup. There is a strong Conservative presence in the Military, but again, highly unlikely our military would support a coup.
As olde as you are, you may well remember the last attempted coup in the USofA... do you recall it? It was in the early 30s and it was perpetrated NOT by liberals as you think, but by rich businessmen... Imagine that.

And unlike rsr who always makes outlandish claims then runs away and hides under his rock when asked for links... I have them for you...

THE BUSINESS PLOT TO OVERTHROW ROOSEVELT

In the summer of 1933, shortly after Roosevelt's "First 100 Days," America's richest businessmen were in a panic. It was clear that Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Roosevelt had to be stopped at all costs.

The answer was a military coup. It was to be secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. This included some of America's richest and most famous names of the time:

Irenee Du Pont - Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.
Grayson Murphy - Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.
William Doyle - Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.
John Davis - Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.
Al Smith - Roosevelt's bitter political foe from New York. Smith was a former governor of New York and a codirector of the American Liberty League.
John J. Raskob - A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. In later decades, Raskob would become a "Knight of Malta," a Roman Catholic Religious Order with a high percentage of CIA spies, including CIA Directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.
Robert Clark - One of Wall Street's richest bankers and stockbrokers.
Gerald MacGuire - Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. MacGuire was the key recruiter to General Butler.

The plotters attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead the coup. They selected him because he was a war hero who was popular with the troops. The plotters felt his good reputation was important to make the troops feel confident that they were doing the right thing by overthrowing a democratically elected president. However, this was a mistake: Butler was popular with the troops because he identified with them. That is, he was a man of the people, not the elite.

...snip
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
What I found interesting was being reminded of a bit of history this afternoon. Did you know Hitler set about taking complete control by first legislating a consolidation of power in the event of national emergency, then creating an emergency?

I had forgotten it.
Hitler claimed the act of a lone lunatic, Martinus van der Lubbe, was a part of a Communist plot to seize control of the German government. That act was the burning of the Reichstag which led to Hitler's suspension of the Weimar constitution, declaring that,

<blockquote>Thus restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and association, and violations of the privacy of portal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property rights are permissible beyond the legal limits other wise prescribed. - <i>The Coming of the Third Reich</i>, Richard J. Evans, pg 333</blockquote>

These restrictions were in effect until "further notice". This "Reichstag declaration" set the stage for the bloody, brutal suppression of political opposition that followed.

The sentiments of that declaration seem to be echoed in <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html>NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51</a>, which Dubbyuh signed without fanfare on 5/9/07.

This directive is disturbing in and of itself, but is even more so in light of Dubbyuh's behavior of late.

<blockquote> Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny." - <a href=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html>Georgie Anne Geyer</a>, 5/31/07</blockquote>

And then there's this from the April 30th edition of <i>The Nelson Report</i>

<blockquote>Some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he&#8217;s doing things would be OK&#8230;etc., etc. This is called a &#8220;bunker mentality&#8221; and it&#8217;s not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous.</blockquote>

Seems that the next step on his slide into oblivion is talking to the presidential portraits, in addition to whining about how unappreciated he is. We can only hope he doesn't drag the rest of the world down with him.
 
OP
TheStripey1

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
well, Dr Bowman is on a talking tour of the USofA even as we type... could be that he is coming to speak somewhere near you, Bully...

He is coming near me this weekend... and I'm going to try and make it there to see him.
 

Chips Rafferty

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
839
Reaction score
75
Points
28
Location
North of Melbourne, Australia.
Yep... the burning of the Reichstag (sp)... are you hip to False Flag operations?
And don’t forget Hitler and many Freikorp (some were Communist) units thought that the Comyanusts, Joos, and intaleckshuls i.e. the evul Libruls, had stabbed the Germany army in the back on the home front, which brought about her defeat in WW1.

Hmm…sounds just like the Sergeant Bilkos and the Waffle House warriors wailing about why we are failing in Eye-wrack and why the pygmies in black pyjamas beat us in Vietnam, doesn’t it?
 

loosecannon

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,888
Reaction score
269
Points
48
What I found interesting was being reminded of a bit of history this afternoon. Did you know Hitler set about taking complete control by first legislating a consolidation of power in the event of national emergency, then creating an emergency?

I had forgotten it.
I did know that. Thom Hartman has covered it several times in the last few years. It is amazing to watch how contemporary politicians rely on classic literature for their ideas.
 

loosecannon

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,888
Reaction score
269
Points
48
speak for yourself, dimbulb. I'll be going to see Dr Bowman speak, maybe you should climb out of your self imposed exile and join me.

nahhhhh, you might learn something.
Who you callin dimbulb? I am merely callin partisans partisan.

I hope you do learn something. Maybe you will learn to stop being a narrow minded partisan from one (either) side of the fence, and learn to just kick the fence over.
 

loosecannon

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,888
Reaction score
269
Points
48
Hitler claimed the act of a lone lunatic, Martinus van der Lubbe, was a part of a Communist plot to seize control of the German government. That act was the burning of the Reichstag which led to Hitler's suspension of the Weimar constitution, declaring that,

<blockquote>Thus restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and association, and violations of the privacy of portal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property rights are permissible beyond the legal limits other wise prescribed. - <i>The Coming of the Third Reich</i>, Richard J. Evans, pg 333</blockquote>

These restrictions were in effect until "further notice". This "Reichstag declaration" set the stage for the bloody, brutal suppression of political opposition that followed.

The sentiments of that declaration seem to be echoed in <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html>NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51</a>, which Dubbyuh signed without fanfare on 5/9/07.

This directive is disturbing in and of itself, but is even more so in light of Dubbyuh's behavior of late.

<blockquote> Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny." - <a href=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html>Georgie Anne Geyer</a>, 5/31/07</blockquote>

And then there's this from the April 30th edition of <i>The Nelson Report</i>

<blockquote>Some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he’s doing things would be OK…etc., etc. This is called a “bunker mentality” and it’s not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous.</blockquote>

Seems that the next step on his slide into oblivion is talking to the presidential portraits, in addition to whining about how unappreciated he is. We can only hope he doesn't drag the rest of the world down with him.
Not trying to pick nits Patriot, but the thread was launched with an appeal to non partisan patriotism.

You kinda blew that....
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Your point? And Hitler did a bit more than that AND had his own army. He was raised to power just a few years after being convicted of Treason and imprisoned. The people in "the know" thought he was controllable.

Do some research on Stalin, you will find he too came to power because no one thought he was dangerous.

There is no one in this country with the kind of opportunity and resources Stalin and Hitler had, well the liberals through the democratic party have a strong presence in the rank and file of the Government work force, but they are not likely to be willing to support an overt Coup. There is a strong Conservative presence in the Military, but again, highly unlikely our military would support a coup.
My point is, didn't Bush just sign some executive order or some such giving the President sole authority to act in certain states of emergency?

And I'm not pointing a finger at Bush. I'm pointing a finger at the legislation itself, and what could happen. Has he signed into law something that can be abused in the future and used against "We, the people?"

I sometimes wonder if ANY of these damned politicians can see past the end of their own terms.
 

loosecannon

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,888
Reaction score
269
Points
48
My point is, didn't Bush just sign some executive order or some such giving the President sole authority to act in certain states of emergency?

And I'm not pointing a finger at Bush. I'm pointing a finger at the legislation itself, and what could happen. Has he signed into law something that can be abused in the future and used against "We, the people?"

I sometimes wonder if ANY of these damned politicians can see past the end of their own terms.
Look, I think Bush is capable of striving toward becoming an authoritarian dictator. So call me a fringebot.

But I also think Hillary is as or maybe even more likely to do the same. The executive order that Bush signed, the warrantless eavesdropping, the politicized DOJ, these are features of law and now tradition that Hillary will inherit in two short years.

NO president can be trusted to assert they are above the law via signing statements and 20 other "innovations" that Reagan and the Bush's have introduced.

Has it occured to any of ya'll that by 2016 we will more than likely have had a Bush or a Clinton as pres or VP for 36 years straight years? About 18% of the term of our nation? Almost two generations? Doesn't it occur that something is wrong with that? Something that would suggest a new dynasty instead of a democracy?

Granting expanded presidential powers is beyond foolish.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Look, I think Bush is capable of striving toward becoming an authoritarian dictator. So call me a fringebot.

But I also think Hillary is as or maybe even more likely to do the same. The executive order that Bush signed, the warrantless eavesdropping, the politicized DOJ, these are features of law and now tradition that Hillary will inherit in two short years.

NO president can be trusted to assert they are above the law via signing statements and 20 other "innovations" that Reagan and the Bush's have introduced.

Has it occured to any of ya'll that by 2016 we will more than likely have had a Bush or a Clinton as pres or VP for 36 years straight years? About 18% of the term of our nation? Almost two generations? Doesn't it occur that something is wrong with that? Something that would suggest a new dynasty instead of a democracy?

Granting expanded presidential powers is beyond foolish.
I tend to agree. However, on the other side of the coin, we have a legislature incapable of accomplishing anything preferring to spend their time engaged in petty partisan bickering.
 

loosecannon

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,888
Reaction score
269
Points
48
I tend to agree. However, on the other side of the coin, we have a legislature incapable of accomplishing anything preferring to spend their time engaged in petty partisan bickering.
The legislature is becoming less than worthless. That is a fact. But they pose little danger.

An executive dynasty that is above the law and the legislature and has packed the courts for 36 years poses a real danger. Not to mention the civil service appointments, military appointments and national security appointments.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The legislature is becoming less than worthless. That is a fact. But they pose little danger.

An executive dynasty that is above the law and the legislature and has packed the courts for 36 years poses a real danger. Not to mention the civil service appointments, military appointments and national security appointments.
Ah ... the Washington bureacracy. A BIG pet peeve of mine.

There IS some cronyism in the Civil Service. However, you have to take a test and all that crap.

Not sure what you mean by "military appointments."

National Security jobs at the DC level have always been appointed, right?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top