’)I may be a partisan Democrat who feels like the Republican party is full of crap and built on a foundation of hate and lies, but I hope George W. Bush is the last "base" president.
It’s not healthy for our democracy. The president must be an advocate for his or her ideals, but being party leader should take a major backseat to being national leader.
You are a moron, Ollie.
You are a moron, Ollie.
…because obviously GWB has done so much over the past few years to unify the nation and find common ground with his political opponents. For instance…..uh……uh…..help me out here, Andrew.
You’re an asshat, Andrew…
Wow, tossing around names instead offering a substantive rebuttal is so easy, it’s like it takes no effort at all!!
In addition to Ollie, Wilbur and lany77 are also morons.
And you’re a canker on the prick of despair, so what.
I find this particularly interesting because the two roles – party leader and Head of Government – are pretty much inseperable in this country. Another thing to admire about your method of selecting a leader for your country, alongside the “two elections and out” system.
The war was bi-partisan. No Chile’ Left Behind was bipartisan.
And last base president? What does that do to all the Democrats pandering to the yahoo left?
The war was bi-partisan.
Suuuuuuuuuure it was. Whateeeeeeeeever you say.
No Chile’ Left Behind was bipartisan.
What does Chile have to do with this.
What does that do to all the Democrats pandering to the yahoo left?
Is this the same “yahoo left” that was correct about what would happen if we went to Iraq? At least the “yahoo left” is better than the fundie right that wants to make homosexuality punishable by death.
a) No it wasn’t. Just because Democrats were fooled into/had few enough balls to vote for it, doesn’t make the war not a neo-con wet dream.
b) Maybe.
c) The “yahoo left” only exists in your head, and even there it only consists of a set of people who – shock – happen to have differing political philosophies to yours, which your brain somehow parses as hatred.
“National Leader”? Sounds scary to me…
I want a President with an opposition Party nipping at his heels for one or two terms.
Believe it or not, the beginning of the end of the effectiveness of the Presidential Election process was the direct election of Senators:
Dugger, I think you mean that threatening Saddam with war was bipartisan. Waging war incompetently was all GWB.
Divisive. Petty. Vindictive. In over his head. That is how history will remember GWB. The only thing he has proved good at is purging competent people from government installing loyal party hacks in their place.
George W. Bush is a cartoon character, inserted into a political cartoon that offers no comic relief. We keep waiting for the next pane to offer us laughter, and all we get is a “bideep, bideep, this is serious, folks!”
Why is this about Pres Bush, anyway? Pres Clinton was in “campaign mode” for eight years…
Didn’t bother any of you, as I recall.
“National Leader”? Sounds scary to me…
Well, everything sounds scary to you, Frank.
I want a President with an opposition Party nipping at his heels for one or two terms.
Unless he’s a Republican, in which case the opposition party members are “obstructionists”.
I don’t think you’ll find any approval rating as lopsided in favor of one party for a president in all history. I’m not pretending that the Republican base loved Clinton or that the Democratic base loved Reagan, but both Presidents enjoyed consistent popular support for sustained periods because they both acted at least rhetorically as if they represented Democrats, Republicans and everyone else. I certainly am not a fan of Ronald Reagan’s policies but I respect the hell out of his time in office for that, and that’s why people from all sides showed him such respect when he died. Sure, the President is the head of his own party and he is all about electing people in his own party, but they should act like the leader of all of us. That’s the point of their job.
Oliver,Why don’t you face the fact that you have a visceral, irrational hatred of Pres. Bush, and if he gave his life to save CK, you’d spit on his grave.
Oliver,Why don’t you face the fact that you have a visceral, irrational hatred of Pres. Bush, and if he gave his life to save CK, you’d spit on his grave.
First of all, I don’t really care about Commander Kool. Secondly, why oh why oh why would Oliver EVER so must as have an unpleasant thought about St. Bush?
“Oliver,Why don’t you face the fact that you have a visceral, irrational hatred of Pres. Bush,”
It’s not irrational. It’s based on what he has done while in office.
Until you can figure that out, your are useless in this debate.
Oh, and Andrew, stop calling people morons. That’s my word. Pick another.
I suggest imbecile.
What Zython said. You act as if Bush has simply sat in the Oval Office and presided over Thanksgiving turkey pardons and nothing else. When I hate, I hate with reason.
“Hate with reason” is an oxymoron.
Oliver, once you find yourself in agreement with Zython (that is his real name,isn’t it?) you have found that secret place where brains go to die.
CSS: You dope. If I agree with Oliver, we are no longer debating, are we?
“Hate with reason” is an oxymoron.
That’s stupid. For example, I hate the One Piece dub, but can you really look me in the eye and say that I have no reasons to hate it?
(No, I don’t expect you to know what One Piece is, but I feel this video speaks for itself.)
Oliver, once you find yourself in agreement with Zython (that is his real name,isn’t it?) you have found that secret place where brains go to die.
…says the guy that has yet to beat me.
Zython, I can’t even begin to address your foolishness.
You really are wasting your time with these — whatever they are — they’re certainly aren’t worth being called comments.
Do you really think I care about an anime on Youtube? No, I didn’t what the child’s game One Piece was. I found out in about 8 seconds, though.
And I must ask you: Beat you at what?
Do you really think I care about an anime on Youtube? No, I didn’t what the child’s game One Piece was. I found out in about 8 seconds, though.
*sigh* I was responding to your commend on how it’s impossible to hate something with reason. I tried to come up with a non-political example, but I guess my interests are too esoteric for your tastes. I don’t blame you for this, but please at least make an effort to understand my overlaying point. This was the best example of a non-political clusterfuck that I can think of.
But I do think you have a point. As much as I like to watch you and the otehr conservative trolls scramble and squirm, I think it may be time for me to hang up the towel. This takes more effort than its worth. I should really be using the time I spend on these comments for more constructive purposes. Call this a victory is you will, but I’ll still be in the political sphere, and I’ll be doing more important things.
Zython: What the hell are you talking about? I wouldn’t care if you never commented on anything I said ever again. I wouldn’t care if you never “commented” on this blog,. or any blog ever again.
Why you would consider a reference to a child’s game that I found in a few seconds to be esoteric is a mystery. If you intend to ever “beat” me at anything, at least as I define it, you had better start making use of a dictionary.
I know exactly what you were trying to say. You didn’t say it well, you didn’t say it in a way that contradicted my point, and you didn’t say it in a way that indicated you even understood my point.
Here it is: Even if the One Piece dub makes you vomit, hating it is irrational. It has done you no harm. It will never harm you. It has never harmed any one.
Hating a person, even the President, even Dracula, even Hitler, is irrational. They have done you no harm. They will do you no harm.
The people who attempted to hound Pres. Clinton out of office for eight years didn’t hate him. They were repulsed by him, as I was. Their revulsion, unlike mine, roused them to action, but they didn’t hate him.
They didn’t find fault with everything he said and did. They didn’t write full time blogs, scourging him at every turn. They didn’t post entries about birds pooping on him. They didn’t constantly refer to him as the “worst President in history” when even libera; Democrats disagree with that assessment.
Finally, you don’t hang up the towel, you “throw in the towel”.
Stick around. Learn something.
“They didn’t find fault with everything he said and did. They didn’t write full time blogs, scourging him at every turn. They didn’t post entries about birds pooping on him. They didn’t constantly refer to him as the “worst President in history” when even liberal Democrats disagree with that assessment.”
Blogs didn’t really exist at the time, genius. Go look at townhall.com or Instapundit. Those guys would have done exactly what you described if they had the means.
“The people who attempted to hound Pres. Clinton out of office for eight years didn’t hate him. They were repulsed by him, as I was. Their revulsion, unlike mine, roused them to action, but they didn’t hate him.”
Well, some ads in the back of National Review would probably prove otherwise. I used to read it for reasons I no longer understand when I was in school, and it sold bumper stickers that said stuff like “Who Killed Vince Foster?” (even though every single investigation declared that it was a suicide) and “Impeach Him, Hell–Get a Rope!” (And before you say, “well, obviously the NR staff don’t feel this way…”, they didn’t exactly clamor to get the ads out of their rag.)
I hope George W. Bush is the last “base” president.
With Bush, “base” is the operative word here.
Oliver,Why don’t you face the fact that you have a visceral, irrational hatred of Pres. Bush . . .
Right. Oliver and two thirds of the country and pretty much everyone else on the entire rest of the planet, all have a visceral, irrational hatred of Pres. Bush.
The people who attempted to hound Pres. Clinton out of office for eight years didn’t hate him. . . .
No. They used procedures intended to protect our country from genuine incompetence or corruption to harass an elected official whose only crime, as far as they were concerned, was being a member of the other party. They did it at a cost to the public of over $70 million, plus the salaries of every Republican elected official and staff member for eight years straight–since that is all, and I mean ALL, any Republican in the legislative branch did during the Clinton years. Didn’t do their jobs, didn’t do the people’s business, just attacked the democratically and legally elected President of the United States. For 8 years.
They didn’t find fault with everything he said and did.
Actually they did. In fact, Clinton’s been out of office for more than 6 years, and not only are you people–who ARE infected with a “visceral, irrational hatred,” for Clinton (project much?)– still whining about him and his terrible, terrible BJ, but are attributing every clusterf*ck surrounding the career screwup that you people put in the White House, to his predecessor.
They didn’t write full time blogs, scourging him at every turn.
Exactly how many blogs do you think were around before 2000, dumb-@ss?
They didn’t constantly refer to him as the “worst President in history” . . .
God, you really are a f*cking idiot. The business about Bush being the worst president in US history isn’t trash talk. People say that because there’s an extremely good case for it. And people don’t say that about Clinton because, unlike Bush, he was a perfectly competent head of state. In fact, he was so good that his wife has a decent shot at the White House, based in no small part on most Americans’ lingering esteem, after 6.3 horrible years under Bush’s reign (“administration” isn’t quite the word), for her husband.
(Of course, if we listened to you, Bush’s problem is that he’s simply had 6.3 years of extraordinary bad luck. It’s not his fault. Sixty-one years old, and nothing has ever been his fault.)
. . . when even libera; Democrats disagree with that assessment.
And those disagreeing “libera; Democrats” would be whom, exactly?
Molly, a filthy mouth doesn’t make you tough. If you’re really tough, you can say “fuck” and “dumbass” without the punctuation, you hag.
I was referring specifically to Oliver, who currently writes a Bush – bashing blog.
As for the ranking of Presidents, You can check here, Molly
And here
And, remember, first impressions are lasting impressions. You had no reason whatever to be so nasty, and I have no reason to ever forget it.
I expect your reputation precedes you.
Actually, fd10801, the odd characters have to do with the possibility of Willis’ (or anyone else’s) blog being banned by some servers’ monitoring software. Most experienced posters consider that to be simple good manners. So naturally, it’s not something anyone expects from you.
What everyone does expect from you is that, since haven’t the balls to engage anyone in person and you clearly can’t think your way out of a wet paper sack, that you’ll find your way over to the blogs of your intellectual betters and regurgitate ‘winger talking points.
Can’t say we’ve been disappointed.
And when your lifted talking points are shot to hell? “Boo-hoo!! Mommy, that mean woman cursed at me!!”
And your sources for “some libera; [sic] Democrats think Bush isn’t the worst president ever”? Wikipedia, “The encyclopedia anyone can edit”–which is why only complete sh|ts-for-brains try to use it to prove anything controversial–and WSJ’s Opinion Journal, which is about as far to the Right as you can get without falling over. (Opinion Journal also lists Reagan as “near great.” That would be the same President Reagan who was suffering from early-stage Alzheimers during most of his administration.)
And, remember, first impressions are lasting impressions. You had no reason whatever to be so nasty, and I have no reason to ever forget it.
Gee, did some nutless wonder just threaten me? And over the Internet? Woooooooo. I’m scared.
Most experienced posters consider that to be simple good manners
Like the good manners required to attack someone who has said nothing to you?
Way to go, Molly!
You’ve found a home…
Stick around. Learn something.
Hmm…if you want me to stay that badly, I’ll think about it.
Finally, you don’t hang up the towel, you “throw in the towel”.
I was going for a euphamism for retirment rather than surrender, FYI.
Why you would consider a reference to a child’s game that I found in a few seconds to be esoteric is a mystery.
A game? What the hell are you talking about? One Piece started as a comic book series. Yes, there have been pleanty of video game adaptations, but those aren’t exactly canon. But I digress…
The people who attempted to hound Pres. Clinton out of office for eight years didn’t hate him. They were repulsed by him, as I was. Their revulsion, unlike mine, roused them to action, but they didn’t hate him.
Translation: “My hatred is more valid than yours, so nyaa.”
As for the rest, pretty much what Molly said, profanity aside.
And those disagreeing “libera; Democrats” would be whom, exactly?
Those that disagree with Democrats born in October? (sorry, couldn’t resist)
I was wrong. Hang up the towel.
Are you referring to the 60% + who think the war is not worth it and should be ended now?
Yes, the framers did not believe in democracy but in representational democracy. Getting a democratic America has been the struggle of over 200 years and we’re not there yet until the Electoral College is superseded. The notion that has anything to do with ‘presidential election process’ is nonsense.
Getting a democratic America has been the struggle of over 200 years and we’re not there yet
Whose struggle might that be?
The notion that has anything to do with ‘presidential election process’ is nonsense.
Oh, really? Just like that? Couldn’t you at least provide me with some reason why you believe it to nonsense?
Or shall I simply say, “The notion that has anything to do with ‘presidential election process’ is nonsense”, is nonsense”…
Like the good manners required to attack someone who has said nothing to you?
What are you, 5? “Waaah! Waaah! Mommy, that bad woman attacked me by subjecting me to the normal give-and-take of a blog thread!”
If you can’t stand the heat . . .
When the Republicans tried to launch their jihad on President Clinton, he had an approval rating over 50%. The Democrats have not had the power to do anything to Bush and yet his approval has been in sub 30% for longer than anyone except maybe President Carter. Now what’s more irrational: trying to impeach a president with across the board popular support, or being in the record 72% that thinks George Bush is taking this country in the wrong direction?
Frank, I don’t know why you have to act like a whiny bitch when people don’t take your repeated twisting of basic facts lying down, but it’s clear you get off on it in some weird way.
This is a site about the topics I’m interested. I am a political junkie. George Bush happens to be the president and doing a craptacular job of it. That this site reflects those two trends does not make it a “Bush-bashing site”, but one reflecting reality.
Honestly, referencing the WSJ for a view on the best presidents. Christ, that’s like going to the webmaster of Condipundit and asking him about Rice’s chances for the 2008 election. Oh, that would be you, right? How’s that goin’?
Oliver, first of all, I was never the webmaster of CondiPundit. Second, it has not operated at all in a long time. Even if it did, it would be totally irrelevant to this discussion; even more irrelevant than you believe my remarks to be.
Both the WSJ and WikiPedia articles reference ratings obtained from hundreds of history professors,and in one case the rankings were the brainchild of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
And, Oliver, I’ve been reading this site since before the 2000 Election Day. You never, ever had a favorable opinion of Pres. Bush (or even candidate Bush), or anything he has said or done.
Of course, I could be wrong. You could find that one time you said something good about him. Sure you could.
And, speaking of whiny bitches, who decided that Molly can post what she does, but somehow I’m inflammatory?
And I have never said Bush was popular. Don’t you remind us all of that almost daily, in your “non – Bush – bashing” blog.
Barely a day goes by that you don’t print some new poll with Pres. Bush’s low numbers, in between the American casualty figures for Iraq.
I’m not talking about his popularity. I am talking about how venial, vindictive, and mean – spirited his enemies are. You know who I mean. People like, say, you.
Molly, you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
First, punctuation is a “sign of good manners”, but apparently,coming out of the chute on a thread calling someone a dumbass, and a fucking idiot is the “normal give-and-take of a blog thread”.
No conflict there, eh, Molly?
If you choose to be that coarse without provocation, that doesn’t make me a baby for reminding you that we have different views of what constitutes good manners. It turns out your remarks, even when bowdlerized, were inappropriate. Obviously, your anger got in the way of your reason.
It can happen to anybody.
Almost forgot this gem.
Hating a person, even the President, even Dracula, even Hitler, is irrational. They have done you no harm. They will do you no harm.
Perhaps, but they have harmed others. The president has harmed 600k+ Iraqi. And unlike you, I have an emotion called “empathy”. Do you honestly think we rally against Bush for shits and giggles? Do you?
Do you honestly think we rally against Bush for shits and giggles? Do you?
No.
I thought you were hanging yourself with a towel or something.
I thought you were hanging yourself with a towel or something.
A suicide joke. Repulsive, but I should’ve expected as much from you.
Why would I try to find anything good to say about an ass who was installed by judicial fiat into office, proceeded to ignore warnings that caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans and then proceeded to embark upon a foreign policy killing 3,000 more and counting? You seem to believe that simply because Bush is president I should ignore his beliefs and policies and support him no matter if he’s driving the country off a cliff. Sorry, I don’t operate that way for any leader of any party. If a president does not act like a leader, be he Dem or Rep, he does not deserve our respect.
I print Bush poll numbers because for years the media claimed he was a “popular wartime president” when the numbers said otherwise, and I also put up the Iraq numbers because that is the centerpiece of his presidency and Americans are being killed because of him and blind robots like you who support those policies simply because he’s a conservative.
and Americans are being killed because of him
And herein lies the crux of our main disagreement. If you showed even half the level of animosity towards the actual people who set the IED/pulled the trigger as Bush, then we’d have a lot fewer disagreements. But all your bluster indicates you hold the actual terrorists less responsible than the President.
If you and your compadres ever decide that fighting our enemies is more important than fighting your political opponents, then we’ll be able to find common ground and get things done. Until then, it’s all just talk.
Being on the frontlines and getting shot at is one thing. Being actively placed in the line of fire by your superior officers simply to justify their ego and feed the MIC is another.
You don’t think Bush is at all responsible for the deaths of thousands of people since March 2003?
If you choose to be that coarse without provocation, that doesn’t make me a baby for reminding you that we have different views of what constitutes good manners. It turns out your remarks, even when bowdlerized, were inappropriate.
Oh, this is rich: The troll, having appropriated a thread in someone else’s blog to whine about being picked on, appoints himself the blog’s Arbiter of Social Graces.
Actually (leaning marginally more toward the thread’s subject matter), this is a part of pattern you see quite commonly among Bush’s dwindling defenders. Instead of addressing the 800-lb gorilla in their room, they’re stuck with talking about trivialities, pretending that insisting that other people do something dangerous makes themselves brave, or–as in fd10801’s case–yammering about how victimized they are.
fd10801 – Have you considered stalking Ann Coulter? You know you want to. I’m sure she’s been waiting her whole life to meet a ‘winger studmuffin liike yourself.
Molly, you can be a pig, here or anywhere else, for that matter — and I don’t doubt that you are — but I don’t like people who introduce themselves to me by calling me a dumb@ss or a f*cking idiot.
I don’t really care to address this issue again. So you can go on, acting like the villain in a “B” movie.
I don’t give a $hit.
Dishing it out’s more his scene.
Right, Nimrod, we all know that I insult people all the time and no one here ever says anything bad about me.
Look at you, for example. You haven’t said anything bad about me (on this thread) since, what, May 27, 2007 1:59:19 PM
OW
Actually I believe Truman was was down in the twenties. Haven’t verified though.
Dugger: You’re missing the point. I think it’s important for you to realize that the President is unpopular, because, well, because.
Hating a person, even the President, even Dracula, even Hitler, is irrational. They have done you no harm. They will do you no harm.
So, you like Hitler, then, right?
…the President is unpopular, because, well, because.
He’s still popular at your house? Really? Can you name 5 positive things about the President?
I’m with Zython; I hate the One Piece dub. Unreasonable? Maybe. don’t care.
Now where can I find Hirahuri?
fd10801, the President is unpopular (in part) because he is actively trying to destroy our system of government. His administration is trying to consolidate all power into the executive branch, destroying the system of checks and balances that protect us from tyranny.
That’s one reason out of probably 100 or 150 or 200 as to why Bush is A) the worst president ever, and B) deservedly unpopular.
I know you love George W, and would marry him if you could, but try for one minute to take a serious look at the damage that he is doing to our country and then come back and tell us all why you still defend him. You claim to have fought in a war to (ostensibly) defend the Constitution. Why would you support someone that is doing his damnedest to piss all over it?
So, you like Hitler, then, right?
Duros, I never met him, or anyone who ever met him. So I don’t “like” him or “dislike” him. I am certainly not going to start up a blog, and complain about him every day.
the President is unpopular (in part) because he is actively trying to destroy our system of government.
Not only don’t I believe he is doing that, but I don’t believe that many people believe that, especially outside the Democratic Party.
His administration is trying to consolidate all power into the executive branch, destroying the system of checks and balances that protect us from tyranny.
Again, I don’t believe he is doing that, and I don’t believe that many people believe that, outside the Democratic Party.
ND: Your idiotic comment about loving Pres. Bush, and wanting to marry him, just reduced the value of your comment to near zero.
I don’t claim to have fought in a war. I DID fight in a war, and it wasn’t for the President.
Not only was it not for any specific President, it wasn’t for anything at all. It wasn’t even any of your business.
fd10808, just because you don’t believe something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
I recommend a google search on bush “unitary executive”.
But if you don’t want to do that, this sums it up pretty well:
“Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power – with real power concentrated solely in the ‘unitary executive’ – is exactly what President Bush seeks. His signing statements make the point quite clearly, and his overt refusal to follow the laws illustrates that point: In Bush’s view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive.”
The thing about you loving GWB was a joke. A little levity on an otherwise overly-acerbic day.
And, I didn’t say you fought in a war for the President. I said you did it for the Constitution. Which is why I don’t understand veterans who support The Commander Guy. He hates our country. He is trying to destroy it.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier. Just as long as I’m the dictator.” -GWB
Though Nimrod has a valid point.
the President is unpopular (in part) because he is actively trying to destroy our system of government. His administration is trying to consolidate all power into the executive branch, destroying the system of checks and balances that protect us from tyranny
Take a look at Venezuela right now and see what it ACTUALLY looks like when someone tries to destroy a government. You’ll see just how foolish your claim is.
Well, gee whiz, Farris. Call me simple, but it seems to me that the events in Venezuela would cause someone to be more vigilant in defense of our system of checks and balances. Yet, here you are along with your right-wing conservatwat friends, defending the administration while it tries to grab as much power as it can for the executive branch.
Or is it your belief that the “unitary executive” is a better system than the separate but equal thing we’ve been using?
The amusing part is that conservatives have the foresight of a gnat. Have you turds ever thought about how a shift of power to the president will work out for you once a Democrat is in the White House? Of course not. You’re the same as the retards who want to destroy the wall between church and state and then cry about how the Muslims are infiltrating our government in an effort to turn the US into a theocracy.
But hey, if you don’t see the threat of the “unitary executive,” then it must not exist, right?
Your hatred of liberals has truly blinded you.
ND: Unlike you lefties, I did a little research as you suggested. What I found was that most of the references repeated each other.
And, just like when Nixon was President, the attempt by the President to push the swinging pendulum of power his way, instead of waiting for its natural swing, was viewed with alarm.
There is a distinguishable pattern here. When a Republican President seeks to wrest power away from the Legislative Branch, it is viewed with alarm.
It occurred during the Roosevelt administration, but then it only happened again with Nixon, and now Bush.
The Christian Science Monitor said it well: “Does this mean the imperial presidency is back for good? No. The bottom line is the president is as imperial as the Congress, the press, and the public allow him to be.”
Did anybody else get this in their email?
Can it be scard tieme now?
fd10801, my opinion is that any attempt to disrupt the balance of power in favor of the executive (or really in favor of any branch) is unconstitutional and is bad for our country. Whether it’s Bush or Clinton or FDR who make the power grab, there should be a calamitous outcry from every American, regardless of party affiliation or left/right leaning.
My point here, in this thread, was that I don’t understand how people such as yourself, who donned the uniform of this nation and fought in a freaking war, believing that you were defending the Constitution, can defend an administration that only keeps the damned thing around because, lucky for us, they have a good supply of Charmin.
Defending the Constitution and supporting the “imperial presidency” are mutually exclusive.
Also, I think you should have included the sentence that followed the ones you quoted: “It just seems odd that they can be so riled by an affair with an intern and silent when the stakes are so much bigger.”
Duros, I don’t know if it’s really time to be scared. All the Directive says is that in the event of a national emergency (as determined by The Commander Guy), the “Enduring Constitutional Government” will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President.”
Coordinated by the president.
No more balance of powers. He makes the decisions.
Why would that be cause for alarm? Shit, by the time we have a national emergency, there may not be a real balance of power anyway, and you will have been worrying over nothing.
…by the time we have a national emergency,..
What, you mean, like October maybe?
BTW, near as I can tell that came from WND.
Such directives have been issued on many occasions. They are more like “closing the barn door after the horse is gone” than they are documentary coups d’etat.