The
Delusions of the Last Rightwing Remnant: Freerepublic.com
Only a small minority in the
United States maintains an unwavering faith in the administration of George
W. Bush. Most of the country has finally discovered Bush and his ilk are
liars, thieves, incompetent hacks, and mercenary madmen. Only a few true
believers remain. These few are reflected in the unwavering statistical
minority of 30%-33%, who still support Bush, and apparently will support
Bush, no matter what he does. This remnant, or as Steven Colbert called
them, "the backwash," will never sway. Like the Christian martyrs of old,
they will go to their deaths swearing allegiance to their master. One might
wonder who this faithful remnant is, and just where its members might be
found. Well, a narrow and vociferous margin can be found screeching on
Freerepublic.com. There, they are apparently alive, but judging from what
they hold to be 'reality,' not so well.
Bush: Constitution 'just a goddamn piece of paper' By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 05:51
Last
month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet
with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA
Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period
immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that
liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces
with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose
renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous
provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the
President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet
Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the
Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that
the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just
a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all
confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a
goddamned piece of paper."
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is
little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of
power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of
paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote
that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It
doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't
matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our
differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining
document of our government, the final source to determine in the end if
something is legal or right.
Every federal official including the President who takes an oath of
office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the
Constitution a "living document."
""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We
now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The
Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."
As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution is
perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."
President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the
last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a
"union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed
some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the
right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.
Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss
of rights.
"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns.
"Don't think that it's a one-way street."
And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary
tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights
of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush,
something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.
But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned
piece of paper.
IMPEACH CONGRESS - NOT THE pResident, as they have
sold out and committed treason against the American people. The resident
wouldn't be if we had a Constitutional Republic, and our public servants -
serving We, The People.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the
authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took
office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute
passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of
the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and
regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that
Congress be told about immigration services problems,
''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials,
and safeguards against political interference in federally
funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's
assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort
to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the
balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is
clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and
to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared
that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is
unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because
Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not
enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief
that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in
which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of
Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant
to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority
to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive
about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws --
many of which he says infringe on power he believes the
Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the
executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about
his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself
some of the law-making role of Congress and the
Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who
has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his
first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past
five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental
power into the White House.
''There is no question that this administration has been
involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of
expanding presidential power at the expense of the other
branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very
expansive, and very significant."
For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal
claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media.
Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after
challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he
give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the
Patriot Act.
Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or
Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's
challenges to the laws he has signed.
Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to
questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions
of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was
following a practice that has ''been used for several
administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully
execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the
Constitution."
But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the
Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is
according himself the ultimate interpretation of the
Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a
degree that is unprecedented in US history.
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never
vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his
judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his
desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing
ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White
House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official
documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation
of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when
implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the
federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that
the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous
sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that
were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to
get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such
statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all
of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then
he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not,
without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has
happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio
political science professor who studies executive power.
Military link
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the
torture ban -- involve the military.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies,
to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to
make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush
says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate
the military.
On at least four occasions while Bush has been president,
Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in
combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the
government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist
rebels.
After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing
statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia
restrictions because he is commander in chief.
Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell
Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in
order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites"
where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.
Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military
from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected,"
including any information on Americans that was gathered in
violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against
unreasonable searches.
Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when
Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret,
and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed
in December 2005.
On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that
only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such
intelligence can be used by the military.
In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture
scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of
new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed
the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all.
One provision made clear that military lawyers can give
their commanders independent advice on such issues as what
would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military
lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers.
Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military
prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of
detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background
checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such
contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law
enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the
right to ignore any of the requirements.
The new law also created the position of inspector general
for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the
inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence
or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it
prefers to investigate for itself.
Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general
position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial
stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also
empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official
refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any
information to Congress without permission from the
administration.
Oversight questioned
Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve
requirements to give information about government activity to
congressional oversight committees.
In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill
requiring the
Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what
situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps
on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give
oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining
any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it
contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as
civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and
counternarcotics efforts.
After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement
saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.
Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the
Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight
committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at
chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.
It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about
problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration
ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information
and alter the reports.
On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify
laws creating ''whistle-blower" job protections for federal
employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment
for telling a member of Congress about possible government
wrongdoing.
When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for
example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for
employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
The provision was included because lawmakers feared that
Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so
they would not testify about safety issues related to a
planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada
-- a facility the administration supported, but both
Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.
When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing
statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the
whistle-blower protections.
Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to
federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with
Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not
feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the
books before he became president. His domestic spying program,
for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before
he took office.
David Golove, a New York University law professor who
specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a
cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law,"
because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are
valid and which he thinks he can ignore.
''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast
quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term
unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very
significant amount of the other laws that were already on the
books before he became president are also unconstitutional,"
Golove said.
Defying Supreme Court
Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave
certain executive branch officials the power to act
independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For
example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors
free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of
the Federal Trade Commission from political interference.
Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the
Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter
what a statute passed by Congress might say.
In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to
generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law
setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and
publish reports ''without the approval" of the Secretary of Education.
Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be ''subject
to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld
affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most
recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions
program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs
should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Yet
despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to
provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among
recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled
out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ''in a manner
consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of ''equal protection" to all
-- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the
affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against
whites.
Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting
the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens
to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law."
A president who ignores the court, backed by a
Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the
Constitution simply ''disappear."
Common practice in '80s
Though Bush has gone further than any previous
president, his actions are not unprecedented.
Since the early 19th century, American presidents
have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not
enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare
occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements
interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it.
But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through
the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to
issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General
Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the
power of the president.
When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look
at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what
Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the
president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a
president's influence over future court rulings.
Under Meese's direction in 1986, a young Justice
Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about
signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to
the Supreme Court.
In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would
resent the president's attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ''the
last word on questions of interpretation." He suggested that Reagan's legal
team should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing
interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress."
Reagan's successors continued this practice. George
H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill
Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the
Miami University of Ohio professor.
Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points
of conflict between the president and Congress.
Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including
the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get
permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme
Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the
executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws
giving congressional committees such a role.
Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto
instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill,
giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.
But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well
as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986.
In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a
record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas
Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.
''What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of
objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White
House," said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements
through history. ''That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out
of the norm from any previous administration."
Exaggerated fears?
Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush's signing
statements are overblown. Bush's signing statements, they say, should be
seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers
who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives.
Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the
laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them.
Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws
that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ''withhold
information" in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law
requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US
citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put
the list on its website.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year
oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the
administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let
people know how the president is interpreting it.
''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance.
Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The
statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is
interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the
usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal
interpretations."
But Cooper, the Portland State University professor
who has studied Bush's first-term signing statements, said the documents are
being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are
charged with implementing new laws.
Lower-level officials will follow the president's
instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear
intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves
office, Cooper said.
''Years down the road, people will not understand why
the policy doesn't look like the legislation," he said.
And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way
to know whether the administration is violating laws -- or merely preserving
the right to do so.
Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national
security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is
doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many
people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to
violate laws.
In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's
contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who
were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of
Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South
Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president.
''We believe the president understands Congress's
intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the
treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. ''The
Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a
presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation."
Added Graham: ''I do not believe that any political
figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed
conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."
And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush's
contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act,
several Democrats lodged complaints.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to
''cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow."
And Representatives Jane Harman of California and
John Conyers Jr. of Michigan -- the ranking Democrats on the House
Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively -- sent a letter to
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim
and abide by the law.
''Many members who supported the final law did so
based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight," they wrote.
''The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions
of the law implementing such oversight. . . . Once the president signs a
bill, he and all of us are bound by it."
Lack of court review
Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be
the only check on Bush's claims, legal specialists said.
The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush's
assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters.
''There can't be judicial review if nobody knows
about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a
Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ''And if they
avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories
rebuked."
Without court involvement, only Congress can check a
president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both
chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of
oversight that could damage their party.
''The president is daring Congress to act against his
positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear
to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied
to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston
University law professor. ''Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where
the president and Congress are controlled by the same party."
Said Golove, the New York University law professor:
''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going
to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go
ahead and try it.' "
Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan
administration, said the American system of government relies upon the
leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has
declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled
for himself every time.
''This is an attempt by the president to have the
final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and
balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way
for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress
isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive
power."
LAW ENFORCEMENT
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under
the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's
license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is
not available.
MILITARY
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to
take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas
Air National Guard I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
COLLEGE
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a
cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil
business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find
any oil in Texas . The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that
took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in
the oil industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay, I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston
replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. I cut taxes and
bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money. I set
the record for the most executions by any governor in American history. With
the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to
the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a
criminal record. I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of
over one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively
bankrupted the U.S.Treasury. I shattered the record for the largest annual
deficit in U.S. history. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies
filed in any 12-month period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in
a 12-month period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history
of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs
and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, had a
Chevron oil tanker named after her. I set the record for most campaign
fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world
record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest
lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay,
presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys
to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision. I
have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or
prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky
affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs
in history.!
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and
refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I
presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. I changed the U.S.
policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. I
appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S.
history. I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in
the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S.
history. I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations
remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S. from the
World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of
war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am
the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors
(during the 2002 U.S. election). I set the record for fewest numbers of press
conferences of any President since the advent of television. I set the all-time
record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the
entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S.
history. I garnered the most sympathy for the U .S. after the World Trade
Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country
in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the
record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so
against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the
world community. I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a
cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime. In my
State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and
then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am the first President in history
to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat
to world peace and security. I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical
Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring
Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my
father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All records of SEC
investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in
secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records or minutes from meetings
that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed
in secrecy and unavailable for public review! I am a member of the Republican
Party.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN THE
2006 MIDTERM ELECTIONS.
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW.
Reports show that Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov has issued a 'strong protest' to the United States over
their plan to begin a massive spraying of their population to protect them from
the bird flu virus H5N1.
It also has been tapped to fill
a $62.5 million federal contract to make an experimental human vaccine
against the H5N1 strain of bird flu.
Listen to the
radio show archives by Peter Kawaja & Dr. Rebecca Carley on
www.againstthegrain.info based on GULF WAR 1 "THE MISSION" , Engineered Vaccines and Kawaja's explanation of
DU and Prussian Blue.
The FACT that the UNITED STATES CONGRESS would allocate
moneys and have actually built these forced labor camps in your America,
which I have been into some, seen with my own eyes since 1996, and continue
to give out contracts to Halliburton et al, to build these
concentration camps in America whilst not enforcing Immigration laws already
on the books, when Congress votes to grant amnesty and the President talks
about guest worker programs and forgiveness for the illegal aliens - YET
they tell us these forced labor camps are for immigrants, YOU KNOW IT IS A
LIE - they are buying time as you allow them to put all they need into place
for YOUR ENSLAVEMENT.
These elitists are Hitler's children who believe in and support
CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN AMERICA!
These forced labor camps are not to force immigrants to work,
the immigrants are doing your work for less than minimum wage so the elitists
are happy with the immigrants, BUT they are NOT happy with YOU, American. YOU
want fair pay and you will one day wake up and see what they are doing to your
country and our economy - so those FORCED LABOR CAMPS are FOR YOU STUPID, to
force you to work in prison just so you can eat, you will be a prisoner for the
rest of your short life as illegals willingly perform cheap labor, and their
benefit will be to take your white wives and daughters just as the G_D of the
Old Testament promised those who conquered and raped in his name. THAT G_D
is not the Christian Jesus God, you have been fooled by their Zionist-Talmudic
Bible, it isn't a christian holy book.
GOP Candidate's Call for Labor Camp Rebuked
By JENNIFER TALHELM
The Associated Press
Friday, June 23, 2006; 10:05 PM
WASHINGTON -- A Republican gubernatorial candidate's call for creation of a
forced labor camp for illegal immigrants drew rebukes Friday from two GOP
lawmakers, who labeled it a low point in the immigration debate.
KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M
By Katherine Hunt
Last Update: 12:19 PM ET Jan 24, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and
construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co., said Tuesday it has been awarded a
contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its
Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The
maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year
base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from
2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for
establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing
ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an
emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid
development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant
detention support to other government organizations in the event of an
immigration emergency,
as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a
natural disaster, the company said.
THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS A RUSE -
Those forced labor camps are for Americans, not for immigrants. CON-gress didn't
close our borders before 9/11 nor after 9/11 so we would be invaded by
corporate pirates to destroy our American economy and way of life but with the
planned agenda of long ago - to bring about absolute Fascist Police State rule
over the American people (Global 2000 / New World ORDER) and these concentration
slave labor camps are already built in America years ago, long before the
"immigration issue" was brought up by "their media" and now IN YOUR FACE - as
well as the Halliburton contract, IN YOUR FACE - if you have eyes to see,
those FORCED LABOR CAMPS ARE FOR YOU - AMERICAN, because the illegal
immigrants are going to take your place, rape you wives and children and father
babies from your wives and daughters as you are incarcerated in a FORCED LABOR
CAMP - in your own country, or what was yours but you failed to protect it by
giving away your RIGHTS, accepting Gulf War 1 through 9/11, you gave it away
each time it was in your face that you have been BETRAYED, but you went along
with it, because it was easier to believe A-rabs/Muslims are the cause for all
our woes in America. No - it is the Shadow governors, the ZIONIST OCCUPIED
GOVERNMENT.
Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records
Before 9/11, Lawyers Say
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The
U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call
monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed
June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.
The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest
telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this
month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers.
The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush
violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks
money damages.
``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,''
plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines
that assertion.''
The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on
calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that
the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy
rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track
alleged terrorists.
``The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor
deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would
cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both
civil and criminal statutes,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail.
U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don
Weber declined to comment.
Pioneer Groundbreaker
The NSA initiative, code-named ``Pioneer Groundbreaker,'' asked AT&T unit
AT&T Solutions to build exclusively for NSA use a network operations center
which duplicated AT&T's Bedminster, New Jersey facility, the court papers
claimed. That plan was abandoned in favor of the NSA acquiring the monitoring
technology itself, plaintiffs' lawyers Bruce Afran said.
The NSA says on its Web site that in June 2000, the agency was seeking bids
for a project to ``modernize and improve its information technology
infrastructure.'' The plan, which included the privatization of its
``non-mission related'' systems support, was said to be part of Project
Groundbreaker.
Mayer said the Pioneer project is ``a different component'' of that
initiative.
Mayer and Afran said an unnamed former employee of the AT&T unit provided
them with evidence that the NSA approached the carrier with the proposed plan.
Afran said he has seen the worker's log book and independently confirmed the
source's participation in the project. He declined to identify the employee.
Stop Suit
On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel in New York stopped the
lawsuit from moving forward while the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in Washington rules on a U.S. request to assign all related telephone
records lawsuits to a single judge.
Robert Varettoni, a spokesman for Verizon, said he was unaware of the
allegations against AT&T and declined to comment.
Earlier this week, he issued a statement on behalf of the company that
Verizon had not been asked by the NSA to provide customer phone records from
either its hard-wired or wireless networks. Verizon also said that it couldn't
confirm or deny ``whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA
program.''
Mayer's lawsuit was filed following a May 11 USA Today report that the U.S.
government was using the NSA to monitor domestic telephone calls. Earlier today,
USA Today said it couldn't confirm its contention that BellSouth or Verizon had
contracts with the NSA to provide a database of domestic customer phone call
records.
Jeff Battcher, a spokesman for Atlanta-based BellSouth, said that vindicated
the company.
``We never turned over any records to the NSA,'' he said in a telephone
interview. ``We've been clear all along that they've never contacted us. Nobody
in our company has ever had any contact with the NSA.''
The case is McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the
Southern District of New York.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Andrew Harris in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: June 30, 2006 18:46 EDT
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist
Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an
ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De
Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the
dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent,
the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from
"The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
11. Promote the U.N. as the only
hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set
up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some
Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as
by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now
doing in the Congo.)
13. Do away with
all loyalty oaths.
15. Capture one or
both of the political parties in the United States.
17. Get control of the schools.
Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda.
Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line
in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press.
Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking
positions.
21. Gain control of key positions
in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
25. Break down
cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in
books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present
homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
29. Discredit the American
Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step
with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide
basis.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of
big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies.
Treat all behavioral problems as
psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric
profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control
over those who oppose Communist goals. [ PK - Bush Health Freedom
Initiative, ad nauseam ]
40. Discredit the family as an
institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of
parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to
suppressive influence of parents.
43. Overthrow all
colonial governments before native populations are ready for
self-government.
(ala - IRAQ, and so many others. Iraq "was" a Republic
before the US overthrew it, same as America was until the same US-ZOG
overthrew our American Constitutional Republic, chew on
that all ye hypocrite <false> christians, aka joodeo-zionist khristians).
THE
ZIONIST-COMMUNIST JEW
Excerpts below -
* JEWISH CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CIVILIZATION -- An Estimate by Joseph
Jacobs *
Philadelphia - the Jewish Publication Society of America 5706 - 1945
a..
a.. Page 306 (excerpts): Socialism was originated by Jews; and
today Jews play a leading role in the spread and interpretation. And
under the leadership of a Jew trades unionism has been brought to its
highest point of efficiency...
... Stahl and Disraeli are, therefore, to be regarded merely as
examples of Jewish ability.
Certainly we find a strong Jewish participation throughout the
socialistic movement which, from its inception up to the present day,
has been largely dominated by Jewish influence.
The Jewish Encyclopedia -- 1905.
Let's see what this says about WHO or WHAT is responsible for International (WORLD) Socialism today.
Page 418: Jews have been prominently identified with the modern
Socialist movement from its very inception.
a..
a.. ... The spread of the socialistic faith among the German
colony at Paris was therefore bound to convert Jew and Gentile alike.
Two of those early Jewish converts, Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lassal
were to become commanding figures to the history of socialism; one as
the father of scientific socialism, the other as the founder of the
German Socialist party. Marx, the son of a Jewish lawyer of Treves,
numbered among his ancestors many famous rabbis. The chapters on the
theory of value in his principal work, "Das Kapital," suggest by
their subtle analysis an inherited Talmudical bent.
The outcome of these studies was his Manifesto of the Communist
Party, written on the eve of the Paris revolution of 1848...
In 1867 he [Marx] published the first volume of his life-
work, "Das Kapital", which has been aptly called "the Bible of modern
Socialism."
a..
a.. Page 420: (from the same Jewish Encyclopedia - 1905) NOW
let's see how America became a Socialist State.
While in Germany socialism has attracted individual Jews, in
Russia it has become a movement of the Jewish masses. During the
reign of Alexander II, the high schools and universities were thrown
open to Jews. ... and in the eighth decade of the nineteenth century
Jews contributed a large contingent of the students. ... This was the
time when the universities became the hotbeds of socialistic
agitation. ... As a natural consequence numbers of Jewish students
threw themselves into the Russian socialistic and revolutionary
movement.
Isn't THIS a HATE CRIME?... a
crime against what would be
Holy, unto Jesus Christ and fellow man? Hmmm. Read on... and please
do give Peter Kawaja's research material under IN GOD WE TRU$T, your
careful, open-minded and well deserved attention.
Here's an example of the
subterfuge with which we're dealing and how
the ZJs worm their way into every facet of government: In February
2000, CBS-60 Minutes, aired a program about a former employee (a Jew)
who was suing the CIA, alleging that he had been terminated from the
CIA – singled out -- because he was a Jew. As a result of that
pernicious performance, the ADL has now become an arm of the U.S.
Government – a "watch dog" appointed to "observe and direct" the
hiring/firing policies of (allegedly) OUR U.S. CIA! Do you understand
just how far the infiltration and control of OUR government has gone
and is there ANY doubt that what is in place now is a Zionist
Occupied Government, a ZOG?
Also from Peter Kawaja's "THE SADDEST CHAPTER OF AMERICAS HISTORY" on
John Deutch, a "special person" who like Bush, took control of "our"
CIA :
John Deutch now CIA Director - formerly Chemistry Professor at
MIT & on the Defense Science Board which issued a secret report in
1980 urging US production of "binary" weapons.
More information on these "special persons" being involved in GWI
have been disclosed by Peter Kawaja at the
DESERT STORM WAR CRIMES
COMMISSION web site.
* JEWISH CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CIVILIZATION -- An Estimate by Joseph
Jacobs *
Philadelphia - the Jewish Publication Society of America 5706 - 1945
a..
a.. Page 306 (excerpts): Socialism was originated by Jews; and
today Jews play a leading role in the spread and interpretation. And
under the leadership of a Jew trades unionism has been brought to its
highest point of efficiency...
... Stahl and Disraeli are, therefore, to be regarded merely as
examples of Jewish ability.
Certainly we find a strong Jewish participation throughout the
socialistic movement which, from its inception up to the present day,
has been largely dominated by Jewish influence.
The Jewish Encyclopedia -- 1905. Let's see what this says about
WHO or WHAT is responsible for International (WORLD) Socialism today.
Page 418: Jews have been prominently identified with the modern
Socialist movement from its very inception.
a..
a.. ... The spread of the socialistic faith among the German
colony at Paris was therefore bound to convert Jew and Gentile alike.
Two of those early Jewish converts, Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lassal
were to become commanding figures to the history of socialism; one as
the father of scientific socialism, the other as the founder of the
German Socialist party. Marx, the son of a Jewish lawyer of Treves,
numbered among his ancestors many famous rabbis. The chapters on the
theory of value in his principal work, "Das Kapital," suggest by
their subtle analysis an inherited Talmudical bent.
The outcome of these studies was his Manifesto of the Communist
Party, written on the eve of the Paris revolution of 1848...
Judaism is Zionism is Pharisaism
is Communism
is WORLD SOCIALISM.
In the excerpt below, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia mentions the
Talmud being the largest and most important single member of the
Jewish literature.
The Talmud teaches the Jews that gentiles --any non-Jew -- are
animals.
Jesus is referred to as a bastard and his mother, Mary, a
prostitute.
Since we non-Jews are animals it is appropriate -- in the
eyes of the Jew -- to treat us as such. Considering the apparent
contempt in which we are held and treated by the Zionist Occupied
Government today, what do you think is in store for us if the plan
for World Socialism succeeds, people? Let your imagination be your
guide.
[ Peter Kawaja wrote in his DSWCC documents - how can there be such a
thing as Judeo-Christian religion IF to be Christian means believing
in JESUS (as God), but to believe in Judaism (Talmudism) means to
believe in a "different GOD" - G_D of the Old Testament - and HATE Jesus
Christ,
be anti-Christ. Since the Zionist Jewish HOLY BOOK (Talmud, not
your Bible) teaches HATRED OF GENTILES AS ANIMALS, why are these
not "hate crimes" against Gentiles and Humanity? Why or how then, can Jews or
Zionist Jews professing Talmudism / Judaism use the ADL to scream
about and prosecute anyone talking about Jews? Kawaja states he will
explain this soon. ]
www.againstthegrain.info
“Restoring the SOVEREIGNTY of All Nations”
ver
a long period of time, with great deliberateness, the International Bankers have
managed to divide virtually every nation into the "haves", a few "elite" who
serve them and are abundantly rewarded, and the "have nots" who will either
become slaves or dead. This economic tyranny depends upon the use of fiat paper
money in unlimited quantities issued by the bankers. It can be overcome by each
nation reverting to the use of gold as the basis of its money, which means that
the leadership of the nation must put the national interest ahead of the
international interest. Facilitating that goal to restore the dignity,
self-respect, and SOVEREIGNTY of each nation, and thus its citizens, is the
mission of GLOBAL ALLIANCE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION.
HALL OF
SHAME
The Hall of Shame includes (but is not limited
to):
To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for
other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2005
Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Weather Modification Research and Technology
Transfer Authorization Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and
coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative
Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) BOARD- The term `Board' means the Weather Modification Advisory and
Research Board.
(2) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The term `Executive Director' means the Executive
Director of the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term `research and development' means
theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of
investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into
practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including
the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment,
materials, and processes.
(4) WEATHER MODIFICATION- The term `weather modification' means changing or
controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the
natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which
occur in the troposphere.
SEC. 4. WEATHER MODIFICATION ADVISORY AND RESEARCH BOARD ESTABLISHED.
(a) IN GENERAL- There is established in the Department of Commerce the Weather
Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(b) MEMBERSHIP-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Board shall consist of 11 members appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce, of whom--
(A) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Meteorological
Society;
(B) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Society of Civil
Engineers;
(C) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Academy of Sciences;
(D) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research of the National Science Foundation;
(E) at least 2 shall be representatives of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;
(F) at least 1 shall be a representative of institutions of higher education
or research institutes; and
(G) at least 1 shall be a representative of a State that is currently
supporting operational weather modification projects.
(2) TENURE- A member of the Board serves at the pleasure of the Secretary of
Commerce.
(3) VACANCIES- Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled in the same manner as
the original ap
ver
a long period of time, with great deliberateness, the International Bankers have
managed to divide virtually every nation into the "haves", a few "elite" who
serve them and are abundantly rewarded, and the "have nots" who will either
become slaves or dead. This economic tyranny depends upon the use of fiat paper
money in unlimited quantities issued by the bankers. It can be overcome by each
nation reverting to the use of gold as the basis of its money, which means that
the leadership of the nation must put the national interest ahead of the
international interest. Facilitating that goal to restore the dignity,
self-respect, and SOVEREIGNTY of each nation, and thus its citizens, is the
mission of GLOBAL ALLIANCE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION.
