Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


FASCISM Trump Demands Gavin Newsom Return $3.5 Billion for Canceled Bullet Train; Newsom: It’s ‘California’s Mone
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    2 Trump Demands Gavin Newsom Return $3.5 Billion for Canceled Bullet Train; Newsom: It’s ‘California’s Mone

    I put this under FASCISM because Newsom apparently thinks he is some sort of dictator



    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...fornias-money/


    Trump Demands Gavin Newsom Return $3.5 Billion for Canceled Bullet Train; Newsom: It’s ‘California’s Money’ Now
    Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)
    Evan Vucci / Associated Press
    13 Feb 20194915



    President Donald Trump demanded Wednesday evening that the State of California return $3.5 billion in federal funds after Gov.
    Gavin Newsom canceled most of the state’s high-speed rail project, saying it was too expensive.

    “California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars,” the president tweeted.
    “They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!”

    California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!

    — Donald J. Trump
    (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2019

    Newsom responded that it was “California’s money”:

    Fake news. We’re building high-speed rail, connecting the Central Valley and beyond.

    This is CA’s money, allocated by Congress for this project. We’re not giving it back.

    The train is leaving the station — better get on board!

    (Also, desperately searching for some wall $$??) https://t.co/9hxEfEX8Vm

    — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) February 14, 2019

    Newsom devoted the opening portion of his first “State of the State” address Tuesday to attacking Trump and his policies on the border.
    Yet he then bowed to conservative criticism — and, arguably, to fiscal reality — by canceling the high-speed rail project championed by his predecessors.

    The governor added that while the bullet train would no longer connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, as first envisioned, the state would still continue “phase one” of the project between the rural towns of Bakersfield and Merced.
    “I know that some critics will say this is a ‘train to nowhere,'” he said. “But that’s wrong and offensive.”

    Newsom added that the state had to continue the project if it wanted to keep the federal funds it had taken: “I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”

    The money was granted to California as part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus, which set aside “$8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors,” the New York Times reported at the time.

    Obama pressured states to take the cash — which Democrat-governed states eagerly did. But the Republican wave of 2010 brought new governors to office, and several rejected their state’s high-speed rail plans as costly and unnecessary.

    California has already spent over $5 billion on the high-speed rail project — roughly the same amount that Trump had requested for the border wall.
    There are two types of people in this world.
    1) Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern Born
    Posts
    4,395
    Good grief! It's like we live in a circus.......
    [COLOR="red"]I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
    — Robert Heinlein
    [/COLOR]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    95,888
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny225 View Post
    Good grief! It's like we live in a circus.......
    Most definitely....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    State of confusion
    Posts
    9,508
    Bakersfield and Merced. Two places nobody wants to go to.
    Smart. Real smart.
    "...Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the cats of war..."
    It’s a real pisser when your belief system gets T-boned by reality.
    I’m not afraid of dying...I just don’t want to be there!
    ...sell your cloak, and buy a sword...Second Amendment 1.0

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SE Okieland
    Posts
    6,623
    President Trump can have future payments withheld to the tune of 3.5 billion dollars....

    Problem solved....

    Texican....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    95,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Profit of Doom View Post
    Bakersfield and Merced. Two places nobody wants to go to.
    Smart. Real smart.
    This makes the Solyndra "scheme" look like chump change....never mind the number of parties involved. Let the audit/investigation begin....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    1 tank of fuel from potential chaos
    Posts
    3,758
    Just what does Kali have to show for the 5 bil already used? That is a lot of cabbage. Investors in a private venture would want tangible concrete evidence of money well spent or SOMEBODY would be fitted for concrete shoes.

    You can't graft, siphon and misuse that much without leaving a paper trail.

    Yes, Let the audit/investigation begin....
    "You are allowed to be disappointed but not surprised"

  8. #8
    How can he claim it’s Ca’s money. They were allocated money for a grand design and brought back something 1/3 the size. Give back the percentage difference then. Or forgo federal aid to the tune of 3.5 billion in future grants. Apply for the money and consider it prepaid
    Last edited by blueinterceptor; 02-14-2019 at 06:48 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    12,943
    an interesting sidebar: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._contract.html

    March 20, 2015
    Dianne Feinstein's husband wins near-billion dollar California 'high speed rail' contract
    By Thomas Lifson

    Update: questions have been raised as to whether or not Richard Blum still owns a substantial or any interest in Tutor Perini. A number of published accounts, in addition to those cited, claim he does. This report indicates he sold 3 million shares in 2005. It is unclear what portion of his holding, if any, remains. - TL

    Further update: Sen. Feinstein's financial disclosure form contains no reference to Tutor-Perini, htough it does indicate holdings in a number of Blum Capital Partners funds.

    To the surprise of absolutely no one familiar with the ways of Corruptifornia, the one-party state completely in the hands of the Democrats, a consortium whose lead firm is controlled by Richard Blum, husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was awarded a nearly billion-dollar contract for the construction of the first phase of the so-called high-speed rail line to link San Francisco and Los Angeles. Those paying attention to the project call it the “half-fast” rail line because it will share trackage with conventional commuter rail trains in the sprawling Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, lowering its average speed to levels achieved by American railways a century ago.

    Crazifornia.com writes:

    The Perini-Zachary-Parsons bid was the lowest received from the five consortia participating in the bidding process, but “low” is a relative term. The firms bid $985,142,530 to build the wildly anticipated first section of high speed rail track that will tie the megopolis of Madera to the global finance center of Fresno. Do the division, and you find that the low bid came in at a mere $35 million per mile.

    And that doesn’t include the cost of rolling stock (that’s engines and cars to the normal among us). Nor does it include the cost of electrifying the route. Does it at least include the cost of land acquisition? No, it does not.

    As this fiasco progress, remember that this $35 million per mile represents the best California can do on the section of track the High on Crack Speed Rail Authority selected to go first because it will be the cheapest.

    Tutor-Perini, the lead contractor controlled by Di-Fi’s hubby, has an (ahem) interesting history. From The National Black Chamber of Commerce:

    According to the New York US Attorney’s office: “Following a four-week trial, a federal jury in Brooklyn yesterday (March 9, 2011) found Zohrab B. Marashlian, the former president of Perini Corp.’s Civil Division, an international construction services corporation, guilty of fraud and conspiracy to launder money. The charges arose out of Marashlian’s false representation to New York government agencies that Disadvantaged Business Entities (DBE’s) were performing work in connection with major public works contracts, when, in reality, Marashlian had non-disadvantaged businesses favored by Perini Corp. do the work.” Tutor Perini paid Marashlian $14 million in salary while all this was going on. Two days before Marashlian was to receive a multi-year prison sentence he committed suicide. A fellow employee is currently doing a long prison term for the same case.

    Perini has been caught doing such things over and over again. They are absolutely ridiculous in California projects. … According to the Seattle News some of the Perini headlines read: “In February, Tutor-Saliba and Perini agreed to pay $19 million to settle racketeering and fraud allegations in a San Francisco airport project.” … “The companies are embroiled in an 11 – year legal battle over $16 million in extra costs on a Los Angeles subway job.”

    Just another day in Jerry Brown’s world of imaginary high-speed rail that is sure to cost at least twice what it is budgeted at (just south of a hundred billion dollars), take five hours for a journey that takes an hour or so by air, and which will have to charge much more than airlines do for the trip.

    _---

    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...y03-story.html

    2013

    Feinstein denies husband's ties to rail bidder

    California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband has no financial ties to the lowest-bidding partnership to design and build the first segment of the state’s $68 billion high-speed rail system, an aide said.

    The California High Speed Rail Authority has tentatively selected a team spearheaded bySylmar-based Tutor Perini to build the 29-mile segment from Madera to Fresno in the San Joaquin Valley. The partnership submitted the lowest bid at $985 million.

    Feinstein’s husband, the multimillionaire Richard Blum, once had financial ties to Tutor. But the Democratic senator’s office said neither Blum nor his firm maintain any affiliation or financial investment in Tutor Perini, or any other derivation of the company.

    U-T Watchdog followed up with Feinstein’s office after a series of conservative and libertarian-leaning blog posts declared a conflict on the part of the senator, with headlines including “Dirty Business as Usual at California High Speed Rail.”

    The blogs stated that Blum is the principal owner of Tutor Perini, and that Tutor Perini won the contract.

    The high-speed rail authority has not yet awarded the contract, although the lowest bidder has an advantage in the contract selection process.

    A conflict could be problematic, as the rail system has received $3 billion in federal funding and wants about $40 billion more.

    Blum’s business dealings have prompted questions of the senator over the years, including investments in firms that received multimillion-dollar defense contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Feinstein maintained that in her role as a senator she had no say in how contacts were awarded by the Defense Department.

    “Senator Feinstein is not involved with and does not discuss any of her husband’s business decisions with him. Her husband’s holdings are his separate personal property,” spokesman Brian Weiss said.

    Weiss said that the senator’s assets are held in a blind trust, an arrangement that has been in place since before she came to the U.S. Senate in 1992.
    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

  10. #10
    Federal money should be withheld from California for yet another reason.
    It is a "sanctuary state".
    This is in defiance to the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause.
    There are two types of people in this world.
    1) Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    12,943
    Naw. Our government is compound, not hierarchical. The states retain a separate sovereignty. The principle is called "dual sovereignty." Federal law cannot compel local law enforcement to implement a federal law. That is why SCOTUS threw out provisions of the Brady Bill that required local LE to register and do clearance checks on gun owners.

    How the Supremacy Clause works is that jurisdiction is separated into three aspects: person, place and subject matter. If both federal and state law apply to the action of the same person, at the same overlapping place, and for regulation of the same subject matter, any conflict in the law would be in favor of the supremacy of the federal law, over the state law. However, the Court tries to interpret the law in a manner consistent with both unless the federal law makes it clear that it totally "occupies the field" on the matter. (I believe this happened with certain aspects of cell towers, preventing further state regulation.)

    For instance, if a miner digs gravel on the National Forest, he is subject to federal law and permitting. The state can also apply mining law on the same man for state endangered species. However, where the state law conflicts with the federal, the federal law prevails.

    Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997), Judge Scalia for the Court stated:

    ..."Finally, and most conclusively in the present litigation, we turn to the prior jurisprudence of this Court. Federal commandeering of state governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court's first experience with it did not occur until the 1970's, when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations requiring States to prescribe auto emissions testing, monitoring and retrofit programs, and to designate preferential bus and carpool lanes. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, see Maryland v. EPA, 530 F. 2d 215, 226 (CA4 1975); Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d 827, 838–842 (CA9 1975); and the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. Train, 521 F. 2d 971, 994 (CADC 1975). After we granted certiorari to review the statutory and constitutional validity of the regulations, the Government declined even to defend them, and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. EPA v. Brown, 431 U. S. 99 (1977).

    "Although we had no occasion to pass upon the subject in Brown, later opinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. 452 U. S. 264 (1981), and FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742 (1982), we sustained statutes against constitutional challenge only after assuring ourselves that they did not require the States to enforce federal law. In Hodel we cited the lower court cases in EPA v. Brown, supra, but concluded that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act did not present the problem they raised because it merely made compliance with federal standards a precondition to continued state regulation in an otherwise pre-empted field, Hodel, supra, at 288. In FERC, we construed the most troubling provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, to contain only the 'command' that state agencies 'consider' federal standards, and again only as a precondition to continued state regulation of an otherwise pre-empted field. 456 U. S., at 764–765. We warned that 'this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations,' id., at 761–762.

    "When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise. At issue in New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), were the so-called 'take title' provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which required States either to enact legislation providing for the disposal of radioactive waste generated within their borders, or to take title to, and possession of the waste—effectively requiring the States either to legislate pursuant to Congress's directions, or to implement an administrative solution. Id., at 175–176. We concluded that Congress could constitutionally require the States to do neither. Id., at 176. 'The Federal Government,' we held, 'may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.' Id., at 188.

    "The Government contends that New York is distinguishable on the following ground: unlike the 'take title' provisions invalidated there, the background-check provision of the Brady Act does not require state legislative or executive officials to make policy, but instead issues a final directive to state CLEOs. It is permissible, the Government asserts, for Congress to command state or local officials to assist in the implementation of federal law so long as 'Congress itself devises a clear legislative solution that regulates private conduct' and requires state or local officers to provide only 'limited, non-policymaking help in enforcing that law.' '[T]he constitutional line is crossed only when Congress compels the States to make law in their sovereign capacities.' Brief for United States 16.

    "The Government's distinction between 'making' law and merely 'enforcing' it, between 'policymaking' and mere 'implementation,' is an interesting one. It is perhaps not meant to be the same as, but it is surely reminiscent of, the line that separates proper congressional conferral of Executive power from unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority for federal separation-of-powers purposes. See A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 530 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388, 428–429 (1935)"...."Even assuming, moreover, that the Brady Act leaves no 'policymaking' discretion with the States, we fail to see how that improves rather than worsens the intrusion upon state sovereignty. Preservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities is arguably less undermined by requiring them to make policy in certain fields than (as Judge Sneed aptly described it over two decades ago) by 'reduc[ing] [them] to puppets of a ventriloquist Congress,' Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d, at 839. It is an essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority. See Texas v. White, 7 Wall, at 725. It is no more compatible with this independence and autonomy that their officers be 'dragooned' (as Judge Fernandez put it in his dissent below, 66 F. 3d, at 1035) into administering federal law, than it would be compatible with the independence and autonomy of the United States that its officers be impressed into service for the execution of state laws."
    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hill Country Texas
    Posts
    18,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Texican View Post
    President Trump can have future payments withheld to the tune of 3.5 billion dollars....

    Problem solved....

    Texican....

    This ^^^^^^^^
    Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are, rich no more - Ten Years After
    Surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot. -JCSS
    Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Looking Up
    Posts
    11,105
    HAND OVER THE MONEY CUPCAKE

    I have had more than a belly full of Commiefornia
    "They wanted to be left alone to face challenges head-on, and to prosper from their own hard work and ingenuity...harsh country tends to produce strong people."-John Erickson

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    95,888
    Also remember that Pelosi is Newsom's aunt...

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Housecarl View Post
    Also remember that Pelosi is Newsom's aunt...
    For real?! SMH.
    Forgetaboutit. The billions are most likely in some off-shore banking trusts.
    We can all speculate about who the beneficiaries are.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    14,965
    Consider it a payment on the rehabilition of the fire areas then...... no more "disaster" relief.

    The train was its own disaster.
    True North Strong and Free

  17. #17
    One big gigantic Grift.....Nobody donates to the moron democrats anymore, in turn they just steal the needed funds from the taxpayers......they should all hang.

  18. #18
    Should never of passed Go... rails are easy targets for terrorists. No high speed trains in our future. It's a train wreck waiting to happen......over and over.
    Cloward Pivens in action, one of so many....waste our money, thats the agenda.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by marsh View Post
    Naw. Our government is compound, not hierarchical. The states retain a separate sovereignty. The principle is called "dual sovereignty." Federal law cannot compel local law enforcement to implement a federal law. That is why SCOTUS threw out provisions of the Brady Bill that required local LE to register and do clearance checks on gun owners.

    How the Supremacy Clause works is that jurisdiction is separated into three aspects: person, place and subject matter. If both federal and state law apply to the action of the same person, at the same overlapping place, and for regulation of the same subject matter, any conflict in the law would be in favor of the supremacy of the federal law, over the state law. However, the Court tries to interpret the law in a manner consistent with both unless the federal law makes it clear that it totally "occupies the field" on the matter. (I believe this happened with certain aspects of cell towers, preventing further state regulation.)

    For instance, if a miner digs gravel on the National Forest, he is subject to federal law and permitting. The state can also apply mining law on the same man for state endangered species. However, where the state law conflicts with the federal, the federal law prevails.

    Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997), Judge Scalia for the Court stated:

    ..."Finally, and most conclusively in the present litigation, we turn to the prior jurisprudence of this Court. Federal commandeering of state governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court's first experience with it did not occur until the 1970's, when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations requiring States to prescribe auto emissions testing, monitoring and retrofit programs, and to designate preferential bus and carpool lanes. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, see Maryland v. EPA, 530 F. 2d 215, 226 (CA4 1975); Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d 827, 838–842 (CA9 1975); and the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. Train, 521 F. 2d 971, 994 (CADC 1975). After we granted certiorari to review the statutory and constitutional validity of the regulations, the Government declined even to defend them, and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. EPA v. Brown, 431 U. S. 99 (1977).

    "Although we had no occasion to pass upon the subject in Brown, later opinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. 452 U. S. 264 (1981), and FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742 (1982), we sustained statutes against constitutional challenge only after assuring ourselves that they did not require the States to enforce federal law. In Hodel we cited the lower court cases in EPA v. Brown, supra, but concluded that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act did not present the problem they raised because it merely made compliance with federal standards a precondition to continued state regulation in an otherwise pre-empted field, Hodel, supra, at 288. In FERC, we construed the most troubling provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, to contain only the 'command' that state agencies 'consider' federal standards, and again only as a precondition to continued state regulation of an otherwise pre-empted field. 456 U. S., at 764–765. We warned that 'this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations,' id., at 761–762.

    "When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise. At issue in New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), were the so-called 'take title' provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which required States either to enact legislation providing for the disposal of radioactive waste generated within their borders, or to take title to, and possession of the waste—effectively requiring the States either to legislate pursuant to Congress's directions, or to implement an administrative solution. Id., at 175–176. We concluded that Congress could constitutionally require the States to do neither. Id., at 176. 'The Federal Government,' we held, 'may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.' Id., at 188.

    "The Government contends that New York is distinguishable on the following ground: unlike the 'take title' provisions invalidated there, the background-check provision of the Brady Act does not require state legislative or executive officials to make policy, but instead issues a final directive to state CLEOs. It is permissible, the Government asserts, for Congress to command state or local officials to assist in the implementation of federal law so long as 'Congress itself devises a clear legislative solution that regulates private conduct' and requires state or local officers to provide only 'limited, non-policymaking help in enforcing that law.' '[T]he constitutional line is crossed only when Congress compels the States to make law in their sovereign capacities.' Brief for United States 16.

    "The Government's distinction between 'making' law and merely 'enforcing' it, between 'policymaking' and mere 'implementation,' is an interesting one. It is perhaps not meant to be the same as, but it is surely reminiscent of, the line that separates proper congressional conferral of Executive power from unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority for federal separation-of-powers purposes. See A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 530 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388, 428–429 (1935)"...."Even assuming, moreover, that the Brady Act leaves no 'policymaking' discretion with the States, we fail to see how that improves rather than worsens the intrusion upon state sovereignty. Preservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities is arguably less undermined by requiring them to make policy in certain fields than (as Judge Sneed aptly described it over two decades ago) by 'reduc[ing] [them] to puppets of a ventriloquist Congress,' Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d, at 839. It is an essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority. See Texas v. White, 7 Wall, at 725. It is no more compatible with this independence and autonomy that their officers be 'dragooned' (as Judge Fernandez put it in his dissent below, 66 F. 3d, at 1035) into administering federal law, than it would be compatible with the independence and autonomy of the United States that its officers be impressed into service for the execution of state laws."
    Thanks for this briefing, marsh.


    intothegoodnight
    "Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

    — Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.