Rep. Sherman: Martial law threatened over bailout bill

[undeterred]

I just heard this today. Is this why a lot of our congress people voted for the bill? Because they were threatened with martial law?

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/10/04/rep-brad-sherman-martial-law-if-bailout-bill-not-passed/

[soothsayer]

1. That just means something like they have to stay and vote (can't go home)

Some kind of congressional rule thingy---not the martial law we're all paranoid about.

[Caretha]

4. No, it was not

"some kind of congressional rule thingy". There are many threads and videos of Sherman's speech in front of congress on DU. Please educate yourself.

P.S. Wake-up. This is very important & relevant to what is happening in one of the most critical times in America today.

[pleah]

2. I think they were threatened. Why else were they all white as ghosts

when they came out of the meeting with the dictator? And, why they would not allow house and senate members to draw up alternative plans.

[HillbillyBob]

3. This OP was on here last week, and the posters came to the

reasoning that if the rep had meant congressional martial law he would have stated that,
instead of alluding to martial law covering all of us.
Some paranoid types have been concerned that w would declare martial law ever since he sign an executive order giving himself total control under certain circumstances.
Others are concerned that the 6 still unaccounted for nukes in the dakota to louisiana trek that was made last summer are actually still out and in the hands of bush/cheney operatives and might be used on our own citizens sometime before the election as an excuse.
I am personally a bit paranoid but then again I have some reasons to be.
Still why is the army brigade being stationed in the us? Why did all those high up folks that would have normally been at WTC on 9/11 at Offut afb ?
There are many questions and not enough answers, or rather answers that make sense.

[RedLetterRev]

6. Just sayin'! n/t

[Peace Patriot]

5. This Democratic Congressman clearly said "martial law IN AMERICA" was threatened.

He was talking about the inducement of panic, to force the "bailout" through Congress, and about a meeting--sounds like between Congress members and WH-Bush--at which several things were threatened, including a crashing stock market and "martial law in America," if the bill wasn't rammed through.

First I've heard of this. Thank you to Undeterred for posting it.

He was NOT talking about martial law in Congress--for instance, sergeants-at-arms rounding up Congress members and forcing them back to DC or into the House chamber to vote on it, nor any kind of lockdown of Congress. He was talking about the country. If the bill (and I'm not sure which version he was speaking to) was not passed, the COUNTRY might be inflicted with martial law.

This kind of outrageous threat and blackmail by the Bushwhacks could explain a lot of things, that are otherwise very difficult to understand. I have attributed a lot of what our so-called Democratic Congress has done (--and its 10% approval rating--10%!--worse than Bush) to Diebold & brethren's voting machines, which are so non-transparent that there is hardly a member of Congress who can prove that he or she was actually elected. I've begun to suspect that most of them were not elected. But fear could also explain some of their actions. Not just fear of Diebold. And not just fear of spying, blackmail and personal ruination. And not just fear of small airplanes falling out of the sky on a clear day with no wind. But fear for the COUNTRY--fear of martial law, fear of nazi boots, fear of nuclear war (against Iran--but it wouldn't stop there). Fear of Bush and Cheney and those behind them, and what they might do, or have threatened to do--to, a) retain power; or b) escape without prosecution.

I do think that some bargain may have been struck about Iran. 'You don't attack Iran, and we won't impeach you--and get rid of Rumsfeld.' Or, 'You don't attack Iran, you go peacefully when the time comes, and we won't impeach you' (and 'get rid of Rumsfeld') (I think forcing Rumsfeld out was part of this situation--if this is what occurred--circa Dec 06.)

So, IF something like the above happened, then where does that leave Bush/Cheney and the Corpo Dark Lords behind them? In a way, it leaves them in the driver's seat--both literally (they are still in power), and as to the Final Looting. They can't have Iran, so they are going to steal all our money unto the 7th generation (and beyond). Back to the "table"--that Pelosi took "impeachment" off of. Suddenly, there is induced financial panic. Why now--a month before the election? (!) Bushwhackydom operative Paulson demands $700 BILLION plus bottomless credit, RIGHT NOW, no strings attached, no questions asked.

Christ, it's like a mafia threat. Pay up or give us all your assets, RIGHT NOW--or you and yours are dead meat.

'And we won't attack Iran, and we will go peacefully, when the time comes--and, hey, we got rid of Rumsfeld.'

The classic blackmail syndrome. Give in to it once--thinking you are free, but you are not. The blackmailer is still there, now making further demands.

I have thought, from very early on, that the Bushwhacks are more thieves than nazis. They may get their kicks from torturing prisoners and killing 100,000 people to get their oil. But they never intended to create a great industrial/military war machine (a la Hitler), and they haven't done so. In fact, they've BROKEN a great industrial/military war machine. Their main intention was to LOOT (IS to loot--they're not gone yet)--has been my read on them.

My scenario presumes that there are SOME political/economic leaders in this country who actually care about the rest of us, and the country as a whole--and are doing their best, in extremely difficult circumstances, to get this horrible junta dislodged. I am not sure if this is true. They may all be dirty rotten traitors, thieves, murderers and torturers, who betrayed us long ago. Diebold 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting and the Dem acquiescence to it has given me great pause, over the last few years, as to our own party leaders. But, since that was the act of the Anthrax Congress, possibly that, too, was based on fear. And, now that Diebold & brethren control all of our election results, fear again could be why our party leaders have said nothing, and done nothing, to restore transparent vote counting. So, in short, I don't know. If some group bargained with Bush-Cheney, amidst nuke threats, and martial law threats, and personal threats, it points to a certain bravery and nobility. Maybe it really hasn't been possible for them to be honest with us, things are so dire. And I really don't know if there are any brave, noble and patriotic people left in the halls of power.

But this telling phrase of Rep. Sherman--that "martial law for America" was among the threats issued, in the "bailout" extortion--at least gives us an idea of the tenor of things in our national political establishment. These are not normal times. And we make a very great strategic error to presume that they are. Good strategy requires a truthful assessment of reality--of what your position really is, as to power. We don't even have power over our voting system any more. It has been privatized. We clearly have no power in Washington DC. Those in charge couldn't give a fuck what we, the people, think. Doesn't mean there aren't some good people in that cauldron of corruption, trying to do what is right. It's just very, very hard to tell.

[undeterred]

7. Someone called in to a progressive radio station

this am and described seeing what looked like a private military force at a hotel in Milwaukee WI last week. The members of it wouldn't speak to him and he couldn't find out anything about them. If they were US military or national guard there wouldn't be secrecy.