Gibson Factory Raided at Gun point

[Mark]

I can't see this applying to guitar owners. Many years ago I went through customs with a guitar (from America to Australia) with a Brazilian RW fingerboard, the only issue was paying the duty. Mind you, it was illegal to import the fore mention RW then.

I'm inclined to say what makes most sense. Gibson have done something wrong seems to work for me.

In Australia we too are seeing a lot of big companies using the media to sway public opinion about a government in order to intimidate them. Add that to the tax break they get and that should be criminal. Still the mugs eat it up.

I agree a government body can't show their hand, it would be akin to them tipping Gibson off to their next move.

I still wonder why Gibson doesn't have their own forests?

Watch this space.

[fritferret]

no, that's right, either. i've read the federalist papers. all of them at least once. to say the "suspicion of government" thing is a myopic reading. there is, however, an obvious suspicion of tyranny. governmental tyranny and government simply--these are not the same thing.

I believe it's "tyranny" that we are debating here. Maybe a well played "soft tyranny", but tyranny just the same. The fact that the same people who marched and protested against the goverment about the Patriot Act and all the other issues regarding the battle against terrorism are the ones insisting that there's nothing to worry about with the present administration, DOJ and everything else that's going on. That was my point.

really?! come on. let's try to keep this in perspective. allegedly, gibson knowingly purchased illegal wood (wood that isn't just illegal because it wasn't finished in idea. they allegedly bought protected wood from protected forests--not just wood from protected forests) and then tried to cover up their illegal activity. that's criminal activity. this isn't like they were caught doing something they didn't even know was wrong. allegedly, they knew before hand, did it anyway, then tried to cover it up. illegal harvesting of protected wood is a huge problem that is also very dangerous. not only are protected species still harvested, but often times they're harvested from protected forests. both are protected for reasons. given what's being alleged, the doj is doing exactly what it's supposed to do! to compare that to tyranny is absurd, man. a tyranny would just walk into gibson head quarters and, "this shit, all of if it mine now. and we don't make guitars anymore. we make toothpicks, gibson toothpicks. now get to work." if kidding, but you see my point.

comparing this to tyranny isn't much better than folks comparing america to nazi germany of saying obama or warren buffet are communists. these are all wild exaggerations that any reasonable person can see. what we're talking about here is actually the opposite of tyranny. the doj isn't abusing it's power. given the allegations, they're doping exactly what they're supposed to do.

i still don't uderstand your point here: "The fact that the same people who marched and protested against the goverment about the Patriot Act and all the other issues regarding the battle against terrorism are the ones insisting that there's nothing to worry about with the present administration, DOJ and everything else that's going on. That was my point."

the comparison just doesn't make sense. first, obama extended several portions of the patriot act and took a lot of criticism for it from his own party. second, vocal opponents of the patriot act criticized it because it significantly lowered the threshold needed to justify things like wire taps, searches, surveillance, et cetera. gibson was raided after their alleged criminal behavior was discovered. third, people criticized the patriot act because majors portion of it were unconstitutional. obama worked to extend portion that were consistent w/ our constitution. was the doj is doing w/ gibson is not at all unconstitutional. they're doing their job--enforcing the law. i don't know what you're talking when you say things like "everything else that's going on." it sound to me like yuo're trying to plug this gibson thing into some broader narrative you have re: obama.

[kevster]

no, that's right, either. i've read the federalist papers. all of them at least once. to say the "suspicion of government" thing is a myopic reading. there is, however, an obvious suspicion of tyranny. governmental tyranny and government simply--these are not the same thing.

I believe it's "tyranny" that we are debating here. Maybe a well played "soft tyranny", but tyranny just the same. The fact that the same people who marched and protested against the goverment about the Patriot Act and all the other issues regarding the battle against terrorism are the ones insisting that there's nothing to worry about with the present administration, DOJ and everything else that's going on. That was my point.

really?! come on. let's try to keep this in perspective. allegedly, gibson knowingly purchased illegal wood (wood that isn't just illegal because it wasn't finished in idea. they allegedly bought protected wood from protected forests--not just wood from protected forests) and then tried to cover up their illegal activity. that's criminal activity. this isn't like they were caught doing something they didn't even know was wrong. allegedly, they knew before hand, did it anyway, then tried to cover it up. illegal harvesting of protected wood is a huge problem that is also very dangerous. not only are protected species still harvested, but often times they're harvested from protected forests. both are protected for reasons. given what's being alleged, the doj is doing exactly what it's supposed to do! to compare that to tyranny is absurd, man. a tyranny would just walk into gibson head quarters and, "this shit, all of if it mine now. and we don't make guitars anymore. we make toothpicks, gibson toothpicks. now get to work." if kidding, but you see my point.

comparing this to tyranny isn't much better than folks comparing america to nazi germany of saying obama or warren buffet are communists. these are all wild exaggerations that any reasonable person can see. what we're talking about here is actually the opposite of tyranny. the doj isn't abusing it's power. given the allegations, they're doping exactly what they're supposed to do.

i still don't uderstand your point here: "The fact that the same people who marched and protested against the goverment about the Patriot Act and all the other issues regarding the battle against terrorism are the ones insisting that there's nothing to worry about with the present administration, DOJ and everything else that's going on. That was my point."

the comparison just doesn't make sense. first, obama extended several portions of the patriot act and took a lot of criticism for it from his own party. second, vocal opponents of the patriot act criticized it because it significantly lowered the threshold needed to justify things like wire taps, searches, surveillance, et cetera. gibson was raided after their alleged criminal behavior was discovered. third, people criticized the patriot act because majors portion of it were unconstitutional. obama worked to extend portion that were consistent w/ our constitution. was the doj is doing w/ gibson is not at all unconstitutional. they're doing their job--enforcing the law. i don't know what you're talking when you say things like "everything else that's going on." it sound to me like yuo're trying to plug this gibson thing into some broader narrative you have re: obama.

If Gibson is breaking US law, it should be prosecuted. If the DOJ had probable cause that crimes were being committed then they had a valid reason to go in to enforce those law. That is not the argument I hear/see. If the DOJ releases enough credible evidence that Gibson warranted DOJ action (both probable cause and evidence found during the raid) then Gibson should pay the price. So far, the information obtained from the DOJ has been inadequate at best. Should Gibson clearly demonstrate that they are not guilty of what they are accused, who makes them whole? No one will. There will be no justice for them. I'm not crying the blues (pardon the guitar pun) for the company, but the people who work for them.

This is something people NEVER GET. Some propoganda is really meant for people who don't get it, because a good education and a little experience will negate the arguments. Things like "class warfare", vilifying corporations, or blaming big oil are a waste of time and energy if someone is educated enough to truly understand things. Here are some examples:

CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES, THEY PAY EXPENSES. If they pay taxes as part of doing business, it is really just an expense. Raise taxes and you raise expenses. Raise other expenses (like, say, gasoline costs) and you raise expenses. Same impact. Another word for tax increases on corporations: INFLATION. Apt, if not literal.

BIG OIL IS TO BLAME FOR HIGH OIL PRICES. This is a crock. Oil is set by market pricing. The market price is set anyone who has money and wants to participate. Yes, users and investors can both participate. This takes a bigproblem and makes it an even BIGGER PROBLEM. Investors are NOT THE PROBLEM, they make a PROBLEM WORSE. The real core "big" problem. Policy within the largest oil consuming country has stifled domestic production and refining and blames others when the market price goes high. The US has forfeited its positive influence on market by restricting supply and replaced it with whining about OPEC (comprised of nations that support or do not oppose terror), vilifying big oil, and blaming investors. Two things any reasonable and intelligent person gets from this. THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T BEING HONEST OR THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT, and THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T OPERATING IN OUR BEST INTERST (because of the first point).

If you study the oil business you find out what oil companies do (try reading "The Prize, by Daniel Yergin). They do exploration, operate wells, they arrange the transport of their product, and in some cases operate refineries. Due to the global nature of the resources and the competitive nature of the global marketplace, the companies have marginal influence on restricting supply. Major oil producing countries do. The US is a major oil producing country and current (and historically recent) policies significantly restrict production. This hands power over to suppliers with less allegiance to the US. This isn't just unwise, it is stupid.... But that's what we've been doing.

The reason for the record profits? Pricing margins. Leases and rights utilized by oil cost X, but significant increases in price mean that there is a much larger margin between the fixed costs and current prices. Those margins are caused by supply and demand factors heavily impacted by policy and this CREATES OPPORTUNITY FOR INVESTORS TO IMPACT THE MARKET (and make money), BUT NOT THE FUNDAMENTALS. In 2008, Morgan Stanley controlled 15% of the home heating oil market in New England. Why are/were they in it? To make money. Why and how can they make money with that? The "why" is that government policy creates an opportunity that money makers recognize. The "how" is that government policy is distorting supply and demand.

Regulation has severly damaged my business. Real estate appraising has slowed with the economy, but they margins have been decimated because of the unintended consequences of government regulation.

I could go on and on...

I wish that a passing grade in both Macro and Micro Economics (college level) were required for voter registration. We'd have a MUCH SMALLER GOVERNMENT if it was.

[Structo]

The DOJ raided Gibson in 2009 and still haven't filed charges.
So if it is a cut and dry illegal wood importation why haven't they filed charges?

[fritferret]

"

If Gibson is breaking US law, it should be prosecuted. If the DOJ had probable cause that crimes were being committed then they had a valid reason to go in to enforce those law. That is not the argument I hear/see. If the DOJ releases enough credible evidence that Gibson warranted DOJ action (both probable cause and evidence found during the raid) then Gibson should pay the price. So far, the information obtained from the DOJ has been inadequate at best. Should Gibson clearly demonstrate that they are not guilty of what they are accused, who makes them whole? No one will. There will be no justice for them. I'm not crying the blues (pardon the guitar pun) for the company, but the people who work for them.

This is something people NEVER GET. Some propoganda is really meant for people who don't get it, because a good education and a little experience will negate the arguments. Things like "class warfare", vilifying corporations, or blaming big oil are a waste of time and energy if someone is educated enough to truly understand things. Here are some examples:

CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES, THEY PAY EXPENSES. If they pay taxes as part of doing business, it is really just an expense. Raise taxes and you raise expenses. Raise other expenses (like, say, gasoline costs) and you raise expenses. Same impact. Another word for tax increases on corporations: INFLATION. Apt, if not literal.

BIG OIL IS TO BLAME FOR HIGH OIL PRICES. This is a crock. Oil is set by market pricing. The market price is set anyone who has money and wants to participate. Yes, users and investors can both participate. This takes a bigproblem and makes it an even BIGGER PROBLEM. Investors are NOT THE PROBLEM, they make a PROBLEM WORSE. The real core "big" problem. Policy within the largest oil consuming country has stifled domestic production and refining and blames others when the market price goes high. The US has forfeited its positive influence on market by restricting supply and replaced it with whining about OPEC (comprised of nations that support or do not oppose terror), vilifying big oil, and blaming investors. Two things any reasonable and intelligent person gets from this. THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T BEING HONEST OR THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT, and THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T OPERATING IN OUR BEST INTERST (because of the first point).

If you study the oil business you find out what oil companies do (try reading "The Prize, by Daniel Yergin). They do exploration, operate wells, they arrange the transport of their product, and in some cases operate refineries. Due to the global nature of the resources and the competitive nature of the global marketplace, the companies have marginal influence on restricting supply. Major oil producing countries do. The US is a major oil producing country and current (and historically recent) policies significantly restrict production. This hands power over to suppliers with less allegiance to the US. This isn't just unwise, it is stupid.... But that's what we've been doing.

The reason for the record profits? Pricing margins. Leases and rights utilized by oil cost X, but significant increases in price mean that there is a much larger margin between the fixed costs and current prices. Those margins are caused by supply and demand factors heavily impacted by policy and this CREATES OPPORTUNITY FOR INVESTORS TO IMPACT THE MARKET (and make money), BUT NOT THE FUNDAMENTALS. In 2008, Morgan Stanley controlled 15% of the home heating oil market in New England. Why are/were they in it? To make money. Why and how can they make money with that? The "why" is that government policy creates an opportunity that money makers recognize. The "how" is that government policy is distorting supply and demand.

Regulation has severly damaged my business. Real estate appraising has slowed with the economy, but they margins have been decimated because of the unintended consequences of government regulation.

I could go on and on...

I wish that a passing grade in both Macro and Micro Economics (college level) were required for voter registration. We'd have a MUCH SMALLER GOVERNMENT if it was.[/quote]"
-------------------------------------------------

kevstar,
i'm not sure how to reply to this. i think it's a terrible idea to require college credit to be allowed to vote. that's elitest and classist. rules like this have historically been used to prevent certain citizens, blacks for example, from voting. i'm sure you're not intending anything like, but criteria is just insidious and history proves that clearly. i think your other examples are flawed, but i think going into that would just be tangent. i hope you don't read that as a dodge. i really do think it's wrong and unrelated, but going into them almost require another thread. also, gibson has chosen to fight the doj in public. just because the doj chooses not to doesn't mean that doj doesn't have a case. they clearly aren't in a hurry. thoroughness is better than speed in my book. but again, none of us know the truth yet.

also, much of what you're saying here is ideological. how anyone can call for less regulation AFTER the great recession is a little mystifying to me. reform? yes. less government regulation? absolutely not. we clearly need regulation. how it works can always be revised.

[fritferret]

The DOJ raided Gibson in 2009 and still haven't filed charges.
So if it is a cut and dry illegal wood importation why haven't they filed charges?

don't know and the doj doesn't seem to care much about discussing their case at the moment. that's completely understandable as they are seeking to prosecute. the doj doesn't appear to be in a hurry at all. maybe they're interested in building a thorough case. guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[NickC]

............. it sound to me like yuo're trying to plug this gibson thing into some broader narrative you have re: obama.

There is an overarching plan that gained tremendous momentum under the administration of Woodrow Wilson. The so-called "progressive" movement is working towards a fascist world-government where every facet of citizens lives is regulated.

In Woodrow Wilson's own words from his book The New Freedom published in 1913:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

Also in 1913, under Woodrow Wilson's administration was established the "progressive income tax", which evolved to a confiscatory system of federal (and later mirrored in many states) taxation that withholds taxes from citizens paychecks.

Also in 1913 Wilson presided over the established of the Federal Reserve, wherein power to create money was transferred from the Government to a private group of bankers and politicians. In truth, the Federal Reserve was neither federal, since it is a privately owned institution, nor a "preserve" (since they can devalue or monetize currency with no controlling federal authority).

Wilson eventually realized some (but not all) of his mistakes. Three years after establishment of the Federal Reserve he wrote in 1916:

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

With financial support from Financiers in New York City and London, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin overthrew the Czar of Russia. In 1917, a year after Wilson admitted his mistake with the Federal Reserve, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin commented on what some saw as a contradiction between capitalists and Communism:

“There also exists another alliance – at first glance a strange one, a surprising one – but if you think about it, in fact, one which is well grounded and easy to understand. This is the alliance between our Communist leaders and your capitalists.

From Louis T. McFadden - Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency (1920 -1931)

When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.”

Later, during the Great Depression under the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, McFadden commented on FDR's New Deal:

It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all.

FDR picked up where Woodrow Wilson left off.

In 1921 the Council on Foreign Relations was established. In 1922, the CFR endorsed the idea of a World Government in its magazine “Foreign Affairs."

Obviously there is going to be no peace nor prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.[sic absence thereof]

During this time the progressive Fabian Socialist movement was gaining traction. Well known author, and Fabian Society member, H.G. Wells wrote:

The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate, and supersede existing governments. The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York. The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will be a world religion.

In 1933 he went on in his The Shape Of Things To Come:

Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition anywhere.

FDR was "in it" up to his neck.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson.

Flash forward to 1979 and the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Consider these powers entrusted to FEMA in case of “national emergency”:

suspend laws

move entire populations

arrest and detain citizens without a warrant, and hold them without trial

seize property, food supplies, transportation systems

suspend the Constitution

FEMA was not enacted by Constitutional law from Congress. Rather, it was by Presidential Executive Order and became law by signature of then President Jimmy Carter. It was never ratified by Congress or the Senate.

Examples of Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by FEMA are:

# 10995: Right to seize all communications media in the United States.

# 10997: Right to seize all electric power, fuels and minerals, both public and private.

# 10999: Right to seize all means of transportation, including personal vehicles of any kind, and total control of highways, seaports, and waterways.

# 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place the Government sees fit.

# 11001: Right to seize all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

# 11002: Right to force registration of all men, women, and children in the United States.

# 11003: Right to seize all air space, airports, and aircraft.

# 11004: Right to seize all housing and finance authorities in order to establish “Relocation Designated Areas”, and to force abandonment of areas classified as “unsafe”.

# 11005: Right to seize all railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities, both public and private.

# 11921: Authorizes plans to establish Government control of wages and salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions.

FEMA has been in operation for over 30 years. The above emergency powers could be invoked merely on the signature of the President.

[Structo]

Nick do you have a source for these regulations?

I tried punching those numbers into the FEMA website and it said they didn't exist.

[fritferret]

nickc:

um...that reply is either hilarious or crazy. i'm leaning toward crazy because you seem very serious. the argument is false even before we get to the content. the logic of it rests on a logical fallacy called the slippery slope. it sounds to me like you're equating regulation w/ fascism by arguing that regulation leads to absolute regulation or regulation of everything. that's absurd.

and i think you need to do some work contextualizing your resources. the full passage of your first wilson quote is below. w/ more context that quote is saying something very different than your out of context quote might make someone believe. all of your quotes are like and added together really make the perspective you're aritculating really and truly unreasonable to say the least.

the fuller quote is:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares."

[fritferret]

Nick do you have a source for these regulations?

I tried punching those numbers into the FEMA website and it said they didn't exist.

everything he says about fema is either altogether wrong of jusy way off base.

for example, the first executive order he gives was sign by kennedy in '62! fema wasn't implemented until '78 or '79. also fema was CREATED by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 1 which was an act of congress, not executive orders. ifema was, however, implemented by executive orders.

engaging this stuff is largely a complete waste of time.

[NickC]

nickc:

um...that reply is either hilarious or crazy. i'm leaning toward crazy because you seem very serious. the argument is false even before we get to the content. the logic of it rests on a logical fallacy called the slippery slope. it sounds to me like you're equating regulation w/ fascism by arguing that regulation leads to absolute regulation or regulation of everything. that's absurd.

One thing I've learned to count on from "progressives' is they resort to name-calling and accusations of "crazy" when anyone challenges their values/beliefs.

Another thing I've learned to count on from them is a constant onslaught of straw-man "arguments. Logicians will know what that means. Posers will spew more vitriolic insults, thus revealing themselves as "progressives".

and i think you need to do some work contextualizing your resources. the full passage of your first wilson quote is below. w/ more context that quote is saying something very different than your out of context quote might make someone believe. all of your quotes are like and added together really make the perspective you're aritculating really and truly unreasonable to say the least.

the fuller quote is:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares."

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

quod erat demonstrandum

[NickC]

Nick do you have a source for these regulations?

I tried punching those numbers into the FEMA website and it said they didn't exist.

Much federal law is deliberately difficult for laymen to understand. The diligent will parse through it all and learn the "bottom line", but not without some effort:

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/femalaw.htm


Of particular note, and by executive order:

4-2. Delegation of Functions Vested in the President.

4-201. The functions vested in the President by the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. Chapter 58 note), are hereby delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA]

4-202. The functions (related to grants for damages resulting from hurricane and tropical storm Agnes) vested in the President by Section 4 of Public Law 92-335 (86 Stat. 556) are hereby delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA]

Section (sic) 4-203. The functions vested in the President by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), except those functions vested in the President by Section 401 (relating to the declaration of major disasters and emergencies) (42 U.S.C. 5170), Section 501 (relating to the declaration of emergencies) (42 U.S.C. 5191), Section 405 (relating to the repair, reconstruction, restoration, or replacement of Federal facilities) (42 U.S.C. 5171), and Section 412 (relating to food coupons and distribution) (42 U.S.C. 5179), are hereby delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA]

4-204. The functions vested in the President by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) are delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA]

4-205. Effective July 30, 1979, the functions vested in the President by Section 4(h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 714b(h)), are hereby delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

4-206. Effective July 30, 1979, the functions vested in the President by Section 204(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 485(f)), are hereby delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA]

4-207. The functions vested in the President by Section 502 of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2302), are delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA]

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/femalaw.htm#EO%2010773

There is much more to be mined from the link provided.

I am reminded of the saying: Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

[fritferret]

nickc:

say what you want, man. a slippery slope is in fact a logical fallacy and you use that fallacy as a part of your argument. when it comes to an argument, logic matters. it sounds to me like you must have watched the movie "america: freedom to fasicism." is htat what has happened here.

you're being very misleading, man. take the new quote from wilson you're using. you quote it as if it's one quote when in reality you or whoever gave you the quote is conflating a bunch of bunch of quotes and only a couple did wilson actually write! only the third (and even that one isn't a direct qutoe) and last sentece are at all related to wilson. the third sentence origanlly reads:

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom."

the last sentence orginally reads:

"We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."

the other portions of the quote can't be found anywhere in anything wilson ever wrote. this is just nonsense nick and sloppy nonsense at that. this sloppiness on your part is consistent w/ you whole argument--wildly inaccurate and in many places just made up.

[kevster]

It is clear that here, just like anywhere else, people are passionate about their political beliefs. It is also similarly clear here that information alone is not going to sway many of those that hold those beliefs.

I "wish" that education on Macro and Micro Economics was required not to take away rights, but to empower people to make good decisions. I know it could and would never happen, but if it did happen we'd see a dramatic shift away from pro-government voter blocks. Government is inefficient, and typically does more harm than good unless the power used and applied is limited, balanced, and well reasoned. Not too common anymore.

My personal political opinions are that we have, and have had for many years, a real poor crop of legislators, executives, and (to some degree) judges occupying the seats of power in the US. Garbage in equals garbage out... It is both political parties. It's been Presidents of both political parties. It's been Congressman and Senators from both parties. It's been their appointed judges. Leaders ignore proven economic principles, and we consistently get unintended results. We're dealing with that now. We had a real estate bubble because of that. We have an economy in the toilet now because of that and the (Over and Ill-Concieved) reaction to the crises...

So back to Gibson situation. I'm all for proper enforcement of US laws. I AM NOT FOR ABUSE, INTIMIDATION, LACK OF DUE PROCESS, OR POLITICAL WITCH HUNTS. The current Gibson situation reeks of that. IF the government proves that the actions were warranted, then I'm behind them and Gibson should be prosecuted. Right now, all the evidence presented indicates that the DOJ deserves to be slapped around by the Congress and Gibson should be restored.

A logical series of questions... If (I truly mean "if") Gibson is innocent and the victim of an improper search and siezure for the second time in two+/- years, what recourse do they have to prevent a third, fourth, fifth, or consecutive event? Take the government to court? That works well... There is such a long list of successes with that (insert sarcasm emoticon here)... Complain to their representatives? That should have worked if it was going to.

The issue at hand (Gibson) is that there are no good options for Gibson. If they aren't guilty, they are damaged and cannot be restored. The public knowing of the excesses is what will prevent more in the future and may minimize the adverse impact of the event. It is THE SAME in principle to what I "wished" for with the economics classes. Informed voters. It is the only good that can come of all this.

I just read a story on MSNBC about Obama being good for gun sales... The writer missed the obvious reason why. People don't trust government. Government isn't trusted because it's been proven unworthy of that trust. I'm a disabled veteran, and the VA has proven itself untrustworthy when they called an inflammatory bowel disease a "benign growth of the skin" and then arrogantly claimed they were right in their classification. When I needed surgery, I sent a letter to my representative. Only through the assistance of my Congressman did it get straightened out. It took that because of the lack of any other form of accuntability....

So some believe the government helps, and some don't. That could be argued forever, and this thread is evidence of that.

Well, this Gibson thing is likely going to just get beat to death with no real areas of agreement, so I'm going to redirect the conversation just a little bit by stating that I'm going to go put the trannies in my first Dumble build...

Enjoy the unending and circular debate y'all.

[fritferret]

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/femalaw.htm

man, that website is a propaganda website! just go to www.huhs.com and look around.

more misleading and decontextualized quotes.... the executive order you cite in reply to structo is order 12148. the order actually only combined several agencies that already existed. combining them did several things, not least of which was increasing nimbleness and efficiency.