State and State MK 2U

We all know that the state cannot truly be trusted, not at arms length. Not as far as you can throw them.

**Not even in an emergency.**

This is dangerous because you need organization in an emergency, as well as knowledge. If Boston is evacuated or nuked, we will need to produce an organized response to this measure.

*Any* need or order to evacuate or organize on a large scale state level could be due to false flag terrorism, or an internal coup attempt to overthrow the American democracy.

If Boston is evacuated, it is improbable that it is a corraling and pre-screening event intended to separate dissenters from the population or prevent potential resistance to a coup. However, this possibility has occurred often [in heads per day] in the past, and has been emphasized over and over in recent times.

If the state is ever evacuating you or organizing you in a way that you do not do because you want to or are helping you do what you love, as they say to vulnerable kids, GET AN ADULT, a well informed person who has the capability and guts to lead or organize or help you escape to safety. If they won't or don't do it, YOU DO IT FOR THEM.

Only love is love, and only you can set you free.

What would you do if you were me?

This is a serious weakness. Disaster emergency response is compromised by the state's potential plans to quarantine/encamp/evacuate/arrest/search under false pretenses, and makes a false flag terror event all that much more damaging. Sometimes it is wise to evacuate, and evacuees may need resources they cannot provide for themselves. You must be prepared for this kind of event, since they rarely come with any substantial warning. Be certain to spread what warnings you do get so we can all watch.

This is of new liberty democracy.

Do not let others put words in your mouth nor actions in your feet. Follow your hearts together. That is what liberty democracy is.

==

NY Times editor: Founding fathers feared such an 'imperial presidency'

Raw Story | July 23, 2007

In a strongly worded column published in Monday's New York Times, Assistant Editor Adam Cohen argues that America's founding fathers feared an "imperial presidency" such as George W. Bush's when drafting the Constitution.

Cohen, a lawyer and member of the Times editorial board since 2002, writes, "The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn't have the power to do it. 'I don't think Congress ought to be running the war,' he said at a recent press conference. 'I think they ought to be funding the troops.' He added magnanimously: 'I'm certainly interested in their opinion.'"

"The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification," Cohen continues. "But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress's side."

Excerpts from column:

#
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress's control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

....

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

www.infowars.com
www.nytimes.com