Texas judge warns of possible ‘civil war’ if President Obama is re-elected

  • Thread starter Thread starter poker10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As if the negative political ads aren’t enough, now a county judge in Lubbock, Texas, predicts possible “civil war” if President Obama is re-elected.
Well I hope that there are no nuclear weapons in his county that would be used in the case of a civil war. A civil war between the states of the USA would be quite dangerous if one side or the other began to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at their disposal.
 
Well, if President Obama is involved and his political ads are any indication, I seriously doubt that any war will be civil.
 
Really? I thought there was an election coming up, not a U.N. appointment of the next president.
Obama would love nothing more. Didn’t you hear: the US got involve din Libya by following the directive of the Security Council. Congress, well, that is so 18th century!🙂
 
I remember when GW Bush was president the extremes to which some of his detractors would go to in order to bash him. I see extreme rhetoric is not respector of party. I can not remember one thing said about Bush as extreme and off the wall as the idea that Obama wants the United States to be run by the UN. Aren’t there enough real issues without engaging in nuttiness? I really have no choice but to discount this whole idea as being up there with UFOs and Elvis sightings.

Just for kicks, can anyone show** one place** where President Obama ever stated that he wanted the United Nations to pick the president or that he wants to cede national sovereignty over to this group? And before anyone picks some innocuous action and exaggerates it into outlandish proportions, a treaty agreement is *not *yielding of national sovereignty, as we have been doing that for 200 years.
 
news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-judge-warns-possible-civil-war-president-obama-230545603.html

What is it about election years?
As if the negative political ads aren’t enough, now a county judge in Lubbock, Texas, predicts possible “civil war” if President Obama is re-elected.
Judge Tom Head was on a local TV news show making his case for a tax increase, when he said hiring extra sheriff’s deputies would especially be needed if Obama wins in November.
Sounds like a bi-polar guy I know that has delusions of grandeur. Just sayin…
 
If you think this is bad, there is a new Texas story involving a lawsuit where the judge threatened the person with “death” in a civil lawsuit.

The case involves a lawyer billing scam supervised by a federal judge. In the apparent scam, a Dallas business owner (the “victim”) had all possessions seized, without any notice or hearing, and essentially ordered him to be an involuntary servant to the lawyers under “house arrest”. The business owner has been under this “servant” order for 10 months and is prohibited from having a lawyer, from owning any possessions, from freely traveling, from working, etc…

LawInjustice.com has details about this disturbing case and some quotes from the judge:

THE COURT: “I’m telling you don’t screw with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me.”

THE COURT: “You realize that order is an order of the Court. So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death”
 
I think Paul Craig Roberts (I know, some think he is :whacky:) recently wrote something that is pertinent to this thread:

"Any American citizen accustomed to travel America’s ‘wide open spaces’ prior to 9/11 must be astonished by the sudden rise of the intrusive Homeland Security, a gestapo-sounding name if there ever was one. Porno-scans and genital feel-ups have spread from airports to bus and train stations and to the public highways, despite the absence of terrorist events. No one in their right mind could possibly think that a 90-year old grandmother in a wheel chair is a terrorist whose diaper needs to be checked or that blond and blue-eyed parents would have strapped a bomb around their 5-year old daughter’s waist. No one except the gestapo Department of Homeland Security.

Even some of the gullible flag-waving patriotic conservatives are beginning to wonder about all the security. The reports that the Department of Homeland Security has ordered 750 million rounds of people-killing ammunition are puzzling even those conservatives who have been taking vicarious pleasure in the slaughter of ‘towelheads.’

Why does the Department of Homeland Security need enough ammunition to shoot every American 2.5 times? Why is Homeland Security equipping itself with full-body armor? Why is Homeland Security acquiring new laser technology that can “instantly know everything about you from 164 feet away?” A new army manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” describes how the military is to be used domestically within the US to put down protests, confiscate firearms and kill citizens.

The police state that is being constructed in “freedom and democracy” America is without parallel in history. When the only terrorists are dupes organized by the FBI, it is clear that the purpose of the police state is not to protect Americans from Muslim terrorists. The purpose of the police state is to terrorize US citizens.

It is not only Homeland Security that is being militarized. The government reported that a large ammunition order was made by the National Weather Service, later updated to have been the Fisheries Office. If you are surprised at this, why has the Social Security Administration ordered 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets?

Lists of Homeland Security’s ammunition order are available online. Clearly, it is not ammunition for target practice. It is ammunition for killing people: hollow-point bullets for the military rifle, the M-16. Match grade bullets for .308 sniper rifles. 12 gauge shotgun buckshot and slug ammunition. Hollow-point bullets for .357 magnum and .40 caliber pistols.

As there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since the 9/11 attack (itself suspect by experts), except for those organized by the FBI, this massive purchase of firepower is obviously not to protect Americans from Muslim terrorists. So what is it for?

Perhaps this film explains what is in store for the American people who trusted “their” government. War protestors and critics of the government are being redefined as “domestic extremists” who can be arrested for aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States. If Americans wake up to the fact that they are being dispossessed economically, politically, and socially, while Washington is leading them into World War III, and take to the streets in protest, they will encounter extreme military force.

The liberal-left is even more delusional than the flag-waving conservatives. No matter what the government does, conservatives will come down on the government’s side. This is because conservatives confuse patriotism with support for the government, not with defense of the Constitution, a suspect document that coddles criminals, terrorists, and war protesters who cause America to lose wars. The liberal-left regards Obama with his half-black origin as a member of the oppressed class, personages endowed by the liberal-left with higher morality. The liberal-left continues to regard Obama as the redeemer even as Obama sits in the Oval Office approving lists of American citizens to be executed without due process of law. Not even Naomi Wolf can wake up the liberal-left.

Do not expect Congress or the presstitutes to do anything about the rapid concentration of power in the police state that Bush and Obama have created. Do not expect to be rescued by federal courts. Even if some judges are inclined to defend the Constitution from its domestic enemy, the courts are powerless if the executive branch does not respect the rule of law. Currently, the executive branch is ignoring a federal judge’s injunction against the indefinite detention of US citizens. The Department of Justice (sic) lawyers will not even answer the judge’s questions.

A gullible population is helpless if government decides to enslave the people. It is child’s play for government to discredit a people’s natural leaders and those who provide the people with accurate information. Most Americans have a very small knowledge base and very large ideological preconceptions. Consequently, they cannot tell fiction from fact."

paulcraigroberts.org/2012/08/20/amerikas-future-death-paul-craig-roberts/

How true!
 
We know what he’s done since taking office. We also know what a President can do with the other party controlling the House and more than 40 votes in the Senate. Apparently, he can’t do much. A “do nothing” Congress means that the President has far fewer options to enact his policies.
For two years he had a large majority in both House and Senate. For a time he even had a sixty vote majority in the Senate. But, why do you forget that Bush had to work with a Democratic House and Senate? Was he blameless for not accomplishing more? As for the “Do-nothing Congress: Harry Reid is the reason why the Senate os doing nothing: he doesn’t want vulnerable members of his Party to have to vote up and down on issues in an election year.
 
I remember when GW Bush was president the extremes to which some of his detractors would go to in order to bash him. I see extreme rhetoric is not respector of party. I can not remember one thing said about Bush as extreme and off the wall as the idea that Obama wants the United States to be run by the UN. Aren’t there enough real issues without engaging in nuttiness? I really have no choice but to discount this whole idea as being up there with UFOs and Elvis sightings.

Just for kicks, can anyone show** one place** where President Obama ever stated that he wanted the United Nations to pick the president or that he wants to cede national sovereignty over to this group? And before anyone picks some innocuous action and exaggerates it into outlandish proportions, a treaty agreement is *not *yielding of national sovereignty, as we have been doing that for 200 years.
Extreme or not, the statement is true in so far as Obama is a man with little respect for precedent for that matter, or for the received political order. He knows the UN cannot run a lemonade stand. But what he wishes to do is to use its authority to justify his circumvention of the Constitution.
 
Well then, I guess I’ll have to start asking for a baptismal certificate from everyone… If they don’t have one, I guess I can go ahead and hate them, right?

Somehow I don’t think that’s what Jesus was referring to when he gave us His Commandments to Love God and Love our Neighbors as ourselves.
No, but if baptism means anything then we have more right to expect the baptized to *act *as children of God should act.
 
I have an online atheist ‘friend’ who I chat with using a messenger program (I say ‘friend’ in quotes because he can be really infuriating - I’ve only just recently unblocked him on the chat after more than a year).

He is the militant atheist type. I know hardly anything about US politics, but he informed me that republicans are evil and that if they win it could lead to civil war as they will make the ‘theocracy oligarchy’ strongly embedded,that they are ‘evil overlords’ and ‘religo freaks’ and that they are ‘stupid ignorant dupes’.

I was shocked that he did not seem to see that a person is more than their political affiliation, and that because of their beliefs they were ‘evil’.

Is it true that politics in America is so much an ‘us vs them’ approach? I find it very sad if so that people put political views over the value of other human beings.
 
For two years he had a large majority in both House and Senate. For a time he even had a sixty vote majority in the Senate. But, why do you forget that Bush had to work with a Democratic House and Senate? Was he blameless for not accomplishing more? As for the “Do-nothing Congress: Harry Reid is the reason why the Senate os doing nothing: he doesn’t want vulnerable members of his Party to have to vote up and down on issues in an election year.
Good analysis. 👍
 
It seems to me that I’ll have another reason as to why I’m not going to live in the United States. O:
 
I have an online atheist ‘friend’ who I chat with using a messenger program (I say ‘friend’ in quotes because he can be really infuriating - I’ve only just recently unblocked him on the chat after more than a year).

He is the militant atheist type. I know hardly anything about US politics, but he informed me that republicans are evil and that if they win it could lead to civil war as they will make the ‘theocracy oligarchy’ strongly embedded,that they are ‘evil overlords’ and ‘religo freaks’ and that they are ‘stupid ignorant dupes’.

I was shocked that he did not seem to see that a person is more than their political affiliation, and that because of their beliefs they were ‘evil’.

Is it true that politics in America is so much an ‘us vs them’ approach? I find it very sad if so that people put political views over the value of other human beings.
U.S. politics have truly become “us” versus “them”. We are at a crucial point in our development as a nation. Obama and the Democrats favor a United States fashioned like the European social welfare state. Romney and the Republicans favor limited government and free markets. I favor the Republican vision of America by far.
 
I can not remember one thing said about Bush as extreme and off the wall as the idea that Obama wants the United States to be run by the UN.
I remember hearing that Bush was going to declare martial law to stay in power. I’d say that is just as extreme.
 
There also appears to be an underlying issue involving increasing minority populations. Obama received 96% of the African-American vote and approximately 67% of the Hispanic-American vote in 2008. Other than Vietnamese-Americans, I believe most Asian-Americans vote heavily Democratic as well. I expect the trend to continue. It bothers me terribly because I do not like racial politics in the least bit. We used to view America as a great melting pot; Clinton re-characterized the new American image as a great mosaic, which is truly emblematic of the gradual polarization of America into distinct factions of hyphenated Americans. I wish we were all Americans again (sigh).
 
I remember hearing that Bush was going to declare martial law to stay in power. I’d say that is just as extreme.
I never heard that one. That would be out there.

So, again, any link from Obama to support some of the things said about him wanting to yield sovereignty?
 
We know what he’s done since taking office. We also know what a President can do with the other party controlling the House and more than 40 votes in the Senate. Apparently, he can’t do much. A “do nothing” Congress means that the President has far fewer options to enact his policies.
Oh that’s no problem for Obama. It’s called “Executive Order” :rolleyes:
I have an online atheist ‘friend’ who I chat with using a messenger program (I say ‘friend’ in quotes because he can be really infuriating - I’ve only just recently unblocked him on the chat after more than a year).

He is the militant atheist type. I know hardly anything about US politics, but he informed me that republicans are evil and that if they win it could lead to civil war as they will make the ‘theocracy oligarchy’ strongly embedded,that they are ‘evil overlords’ and ‘religo freaks’ and that they are ‘stupid ignorant dupes’.

I was shocked that he did not seem to see that a person is more than their political affiliation, and that because of their beliefs they were ‘evil’.

Is it true that politics in America is so much an ‘us vs them’ approach? I find it very sad if so that people put political views over the value of other human beings.
I find it humorous that somebody who is so militantly atheist still believes there’s a such a thing as “evil”. Um…duh! If there’s no such thing as God, then there’s no such thing as the devil either!
 
I remember hearing that Bush was going to declare martial law to stay in power. I’d say that is just as extreme.
I remember that one. It was all over the left leaning websites, and now this one is all over the right leaning websites.

What neither side is willing to accept is that there are extremists in BOTH their ranks that have lost touch with reality. They’re all too willing to point out the extremist on “that” side, but will never admit to the one that supports theirs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top