A new presidential directive, that was signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event" George W. Bush can become what is best
described as a dictator.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/bush_n...orial_power.htm

Does anyone care to bet we won't be getting a new president in 2009?
_____________________
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence--it is force." George Washington
"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." Leo Tolstoy

You must be reading it differently than I am..

because I see things like:
"Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs"

It doesnt say anything like "The president can just do what he wants".

Dear Vetamur,

I'll admit, on the surface, it does seem rather vague. What has gotten the 'alarmists' concerned is the phrasing "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government..." The objection to the unconstitutionality of this phrase is that the three branches of our government are supposed to be equal in power. This wording tends to imply that the President will be placed in charge of all branches of the government and that the Homeland Security Department will be in charge of executing the President's directives.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=5721

If, as some notable people believe, the catastrophe of 9-11 was planned and executed by secret departments within our own government, (which ultimately culminated in the Patriot Act as well as this directive,) would it not seem possible that another 'catastrophe' could be staged which could totally take our freedoms away and enthrone the original culprit as the first 'Fuhrer' of the United States? (All of us could be betting our lives on the answer.)
_______________________
"Freedom is an achievement by men, and, as it was gained by vigilance and struggle, it can be lost by indifference and supineness/(passivity)." H. F. Byrd

He didn't even NEED this.

All he would need to do is declare Martial Law and postpone the elections until further notice. Do you think Congress would complain? That means they don't have a chance of losing their office. And anyone who took to the streets would be shot by the contracted soldiers from Blackwater, or the foreign soldiers we hired.

not to mention plenty of spy narc neighbors overcome by flag fever that would be more than willing to rat out the good people who refuse to bow to bush .

The presidents job is to lead anyway. No one has paid attention to the directive because it just clarifies a few things anyway and there are (and I dont have time to go re read this afternoon again) clear limits on his power in it and it basically just says what is already power.

I realize AJ that you have no faith in the US government or people, but yes, if Bush declared Martial Law there would be a huge problem. You seem to think that all people who enter US government are these evil people.. but you need to get a more well rounded picture of it. There are plenty of morons, plenty of less than honest people..but by and large the people who enter the government actually believe in ideals, etc. Love or hate someone like Edward Kennedy, but to honestly believe he would go along with martial law? Please. Or even Hillary Clinton. Plenty of people hate her. But to think she would go along with martial law declared by Bush for a random incident?

Things may be bad but not nearly as bad as some people project.

Bush will be out of office, and a new president will be elected. People here (this forum) and elsewhere will pretend it doesnt matter but will be at a loss to explain why so many basic policies will change or be overturned if in fact some small group of conspirators already control everything.

bush wont be a dictator...he'll just weaken the constitution for the next pres...he'll do the same for the next pres...eventually the ground will be laid for dictatorship but not yet