[size=4]Bush gives CIA chief new powers[/size]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3605538.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40009000/jpg/_40009836_order_ap203body.jpg http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon127.gif

Goodbye, America... It was nice while it lasted.

[QUOTE=R MacDonald 14-88]Bush gives CIA chief new powers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3605538.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40009000/jpg/_40009836_order_ap203body.jpg http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon127.gif

Goodbye, America... It was nice while it lasted.[/QUOTE]
The pretext that made Bush's executive order possible was the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center, which is strange because Bush was probably a conspirator in that attack. Isn't it interesting how the US government milks its deviltries for pretexts with such efficiency?

The original purpose of 9-11 was to provide a pretext to invade Iraq to steal its oil for Israel and for rich people in the United States - even though Iraq could not have had anything to do with the alleged "terrorists" (al Queda), and even though the US government's substitute pretext (weapons of mass destruction) was also proved false.

ZOG has found another way for its treason to profit them.

George Bush Junior is giving a government agency increased authority to monitor "terrorists," which definition will be incrementally broadened until it includes law-abiding-but-armed Americans because, you know, anybody with a gun is a potential terrorist, especially if he disagrees with the wisdom of the government's policies.

The authority by which he issued this executive order is a war power given by Congress to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which was kept active by every president since. It mocks the Constitution's "separation of powers" requirement by giving the chief executive officer the legislative authority to run the country. It mocks the Constitution in other ways, too, such as the constitutional assertion that the Constitution, and not the president's executive orders, are the supreme law of the land.

When a presidential executive order conflicts with the 2nd Amendment, guess which will win?

Guns? What guns? I don't have any guns. And I'm sure that you don't, either.

Jerry Abbott

[QUOTE=Jenab]

Guns? What guns? I don't have any guns. And I'm sure that you don't, either.
[/QUOTE]

Um... Oh yeah, you're right. I forgot about that.

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/smily073.gif