It's About A Lot More Than A "Goddamned Piece of Paper" Bush Remark Reiterates Arrogant Globalist/Neocon "Crazies" Insane Lust For New World Order Prevalence And Power
Steve Watson | December 12 2005 "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," writes Doug Thompson for Capitol Hill Blue. "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." Thompson reports the following exchange: "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.'" Thompson comments This is just the latest remark in a long history of arrogant Neocon speak to highlight the fact that they have no respect for America or its population. The fact that Bush's remarks were so off the cuff yet viciously delivered reminds us of how and why the Neoconservative clan, who were just getting a foothold during the first year of the Regan administration, through their actions and incessant saber-rattling garnered the nickname 'the crazies' by more moderate policy makers under the first Bush presidency. Colin Powell, an establishment underling through and through, would go one further, calling them "fucking crazies" during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For the President of the United States to verbally wipe the floor with the Constitution and curse it in the way Bush has and it go virtually unreported serves as an indication of the threat America is facing today from an Elite power structure that cares nothing for the country it has usurped and is hell bent on centralizing power globally and undermining the principles America was founded on. The US is a Constitutional Republic, yet to Bush's handlers, the globalist Neocons, that is not part of the agenda. In an entirely Orwellian fashion they have attempted to change the meaning of "Democracy" and adopt it as a form of governance to fit their agenda. The word democracy originates from three Greek words meaning "the people", "to rule," and the suffix ía; the term therefore means "rule by the people" by which is meant rule by the majority. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual or "Tyranny of the majority". For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure. So the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is a Republic. The Neocons have adopted the word Democracy and attached their world view to it. This as we have previously exposed is a Straussian world view - after Leo Strauss, who arrived in the US in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973. Strauss was a German Jewish political philosopher whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to representative democratic government. Strauss, as revealed in a major New Yorker article by legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, believed the world to be a place where "isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad", and where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to "protect" their countries. Shadia Drury, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, commented that Hersh was correct on the second point but wrong on the first, insisting that "Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat." She goes on to comment that "Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, "some are fit to lead, and others to be led", according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior". We have previously exposed how many major players in the Bush Administration and leading Neoconservative think tanks are followers of Strauss. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Weekly Standard chief editor William Kristol, His father Irving, and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Also on the books of PNAC, prior to the 2000 election were Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as well as former defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Other luminaries included Jon Bolton, now Ambassador to the UN and Scooter Libby, soon to be in Prison. Also present was the darling of many Western academic institutions Francis Fukuyama who's "End of History" antics had gained him loving praise from the Straussian Neocons and got him into the State Department. Fukuyama says that we have reached "the end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and believes in "the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." This is perfect for the Neocon Globalists because it means they can justify "protecting" this "perfect" end point of mankind's evolution and it's global spread at ANY cost. Fukuyama was a staple of my International Relations MA 2 years ago and is so now in institutions all over the Western world. The PNAC way of thinking has been implemented almost to the book since 9/11. However, their flagship document, Rebuilding America's Defenses noted that in order to go ahead with their strategy their would have to be some kind of pivotal event that would unite the American people behind the Government. This was referred to as "a new Pearl Harbor" and came to pass on September 11 2001. Leo Strauss was also a strong believer in the "Realism" form of International Relations made prominent by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought that human nature was intrinsically aggressive and could be restrained only through a State formed via a powerful military industrial complex . "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people." "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. This is what Henry Kissinger was referring to in that often quoted statement he made about creating external future threats in order to guard the world order he wishes to see become more prevalent and powerful, the system we often refer to as the "New World Order". Thus for the Neocons, when the Soviet Empire weakened and a Unipolar world order was emerging, a new threat had to be there lurking to allow them to further their Straussian vision. "In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time [to survive]," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy", she added. The BBC earlier this year aired a series of documentaries that went some way to explaining the rise of the Neocon movement out of Straussian Philosophy. It was entitled the Power of Nightmares and concluded that the War On Terror is a complete fraud and Al Qaeda is a largely manufactured threat as part of the agenda to scare people into accepting the Neocon vision of the New World Order. You can watch all three parts by clicking here This is how "crazy" the Neoconservative view is. It is a deeply pessimistic world view and they are constantly trying to make it a reality. They actually really believe that life on this planet is simply about death, destruction and gaining total Global Power over any other way of existence. In the early years of the Regan Administration, before the term Neocon was even coined these people were emerging. Witness Regan Pentagon adviser and former State Department and National Security Council man Michael Ledeen, who is quoted as saying : "Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal." In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution." All you have to do to predict where things are headed next is read the documents and policy reports that they put out. You don't even have to read into them if you don't want to. For example Michael Ledeen's last book was entitled Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism. These people are indeed "fucking crazy". They can see no other future for this planet than continual total complete and unequivocal war and destruction in the name of "security" for their own twisted beliefs and way of existence. The remarkable thing is that they think they are the good guys and everyone else is evil. "We're going to get criticized for being an imperial power anyway, so you might as well make sure that the good guys win." - Bill Kristol. Now whether there are two warring factions of the New World Order in the 21st Century is something to be considered. Many believe that the Anglo-American Neocon Globalist vision differs from the older European vision for a new world order which is one of more incremental steps and an evolving globe of Nations under the control of a world government. This is sometimes referred to rather loosely in many cases as Neo- Liberalism. In any case both visions are thinking beyond America or even sovereign state systems. They simply have to work within state systems to begin with because that is the way the world has evolved. Both visions overlap in various places and yes they do have their spats, but the overlords, the higher uppers, the Global Mafia as it were, the elite bankers and the policy foundations, those who finance the power structures, do so with ultimately the same goal in mind, they simply sometimes argue over how to get it done. This becomes even more evident when you research deeper into the roots of Neoconservatives like Irving Kristol and James Burnham who were both strong admirers of Leon Trotsky. The Internationalist movement under Trotsky is often thought to be at the opposite end of the political scale to Neoconservativism, but when you expose the left/ right political scale as a falsity, a cover for a higher elite level of globalism, the walls come crumbling down. The Trotsky / Neocon links are further exposed in a 2003 National Post article entitled Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House. There is no doubt that the links exist, and furthermore they highlight the false left right paradigm by showing that so called Trotskyites can just as easily switch to Neoconservativism should the moment in world politics be right. They will use whichever end of the scale they believe is more likely to help them advance their quest for power. As quoted in the afore mentioned article, Researcher Christopher Phelps rightly points out, that the circuitous route from Trotsky to Bush is "more a matter of rupture and abandonment of the left than continuity." Of course, the rise of the Neocon cabal and the trashing of the constitution has not come without overarching help along the way from a gigantic propaganda machine. Their has arisen a faction of media Neocons who are now also knowingly or unknowingly following the Straussian philosophical vision. The Murdoch empire is a nice little Goebbels factory that attempts to churn out the same rhetoric as the Neocons until the general public actually believe it to be reality. Fox "News" is not actually news, it is Opinion on the world. This New York Times Article hits the nail on the head when writer Ron Suskind relates an encounter he had with a senior Bush aide in 2004: The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Creating false realities that fit the power structure's preconceived agenda is completely Straussian. The bad news for us is it's also completely Orwellian. In Nineteen Eighty Four George Orwell warned us of where this would lead if we allowed it to happen - and we know it's not pretty. As Bush has been told (and has repeated) "You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda" In other words, if you throw enough BS, some of it is going to stick, and that's what Mr Murdooch's job is. Of course there are then the Murdoch underlings and wannabe's who are also useful Neocon mouthpieces. Limbaugh, Hannity and O'reilly like to tell people to shut up and accept that torture is no big deal and war based on lies is acceptable if it is for the good of America. Bill Kristol gets to go on Fox and tell us what's really going on everyday, whilst Ann Coulter likes to call For North Korea To Be "Nuked For Fun,". And then you have Clear Channel who own the voting machines and put up giant Billboards telling us that George W Bush is "OUR LEADER". But after all, what's the big deal about Bush trashing the Constitution? Fox News didn't report it, that means it didn't happen, doesn't it? Besides, I thought that if you defend the Constitution, you were now considered a terrorist? That's what this FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force brochure says anyway. Defenders of the US Constitution and the common law from which it grew are being classified on the same level as Nazis and the KKK. Therefore George Bush was right to say "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!", otherwise he's a terrorist. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear President Bush; about that "goddamned piece of paper." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Let us start out with the fact that the Constitution is actually written on parchment, not paper. A trivial point, I grant you, but one that reveals (along with your inability to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear") a shocking lack of education in a head of state. But to get to the point, the Constitution is not the parchment itself, but the ideas written upon it; ideas which form the foundations of our nation, ideas which would carry equal weight if written on stone, glass, metal, or even paper. These ideas are the soul of the nation. They include the recognition that the people of this nation have certain rights, rights which the government does not have the authority to remove. These rights include freedom of speech, to say what we think about the nation at any and all times, to write that opinion down and share it however we choose to. These rights include the freedom to worship as we choose, free from coercion. These rights include the right to privacy, in our homes and businesses, free from government intrusions other than in very specific and well-defined circumstances. Maybe those rights are inconvenient to you, as such rights are always inconvenient to tyrants, but you are not allowed the choice which rights you will abide by or not. That too is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper or parchment. It's a contract; the original contract with America. It's the contract you yourself swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. You attached your name to that promise. You swore that oath before a judge of the United States Supreme Court, with your hand on a bible. That isn't just scenery for the cameras. Swearing an oath before a judge carries legal obligations with that oath, and legal penalties for breaking that oath. The election process by which you claim authority is defined in that Constitution. And as you claim authority by Constitutional process, so too are you limited by Constitutional process. If you act outside the limits of the Constitution, you are no longer acting as the President, but as a private citizen abusing the powers with which you were trusted. A government that acts outside the Constitution ceases to be the legal government of this land. The Constitution exists not only to tell the government what it may do, but more importantly what it may not do. You, as the President, are not allowed to declare wars without the US Congress. You, the President, are not allowed to seize people at random and send them off to be tortured. And most of all, you, the President, and not allowed to lie to the people and to the Congress. Every President before you, including your father, swore that oath to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution. Millions of Americans died in wars in the firm belief that the form of government describes on that parchment was worth such a sacrifice. To state that the Constitution is just a "dammed piece of paper" is a slap in the face of every American who ever donned the uniform of the military forces of this country. Go over to Arlington National Cemetery. It's not that far from where you live. Look at those tombstones. By your statement, you have written across and every one the words, "Died for a goddamned piece of paper." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MORE THAN A 'PIECE OF PAPER'! By Geoff Metcalf December 13, 2005 NewsWithViews.com "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything " Aaron Tippet and Buddy Brock wrote a song titled `You've Got To Stand for Something'. The warning to the lyric notes "or you'll fall for anything." I often say, "It's not a question of WHO is right or wrong but WHAT is right or wrong that matters." Different people have difference guidelines for determining what is `right'. In this polarized/acrimonious/perpetual contact sport between left and right, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, (demonstrated by Ann Coulters and Al Frankens), so much emphasis is put on sizzle, we rarely get to sink our teeth into the steak. It was disconcerting to read Doug Thompson's recent rant in Capitol Hill Blue in which he claims President Bush diminished and marginalized the Constitution. Thompson reportedly talked to three people who were in a meeting in which the President of the United States called the Constitution just "a goddamned piece of paper." No, Mr. President, blasphemy notwithstanding, the Constitution is much more. The constitution is the essence of what America is, and for many, a yardstick for measuring what is right. From military recruits to congress critters to Supreme Court justices to the President of the United States, all take an oath in which they solemnly swear to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is beyond hypocritical for someone to swear, "to preserve and protect the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic" and subsequently focuses on undermining, mitigating, or abrogating the very document to which they have sworn protection in effect becoming a domestic enemy. Debate continues if those so engaged are guilty of fraud, perjury or treason. Since 9/11 there has been a lot of `talk' about patriotism. It has been implied that to resist what the administration wants to do is `unpatriotic'. What was it Mark Twain said about "Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel."? I don't think/hope Twain meant everyone who embraces patriotism is a scoundrel but it becomes a challenge to differentiate between true patriots and politicians intent on using it as a tool to further a personal (unconstitutional) agenda. By the way, any effort to undermine the Constitution from beneath a mantel of `patriotism' is oxymoronic. Teddy Roosevelt said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." I admire President Bush for a variety of reasons however; I am not a GOP sycophant who will defend the indefensible because of a myopic `us verses them' group think. According to `Capitol Hill Blue' when confronted with facts that contradicted his preconceived opinions, Bush said, "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." When an aide (as reported by Thompson) said, "Mr. President, there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." Bush blew up and screamed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" No, Mr. President we won't stop throwing the Constitution in your face. You put your hand on a Bible and swore to defend that `piece of paper'. The reason famous conservatives like Phyllis Schafly and Bob Barr have joined with the American Civil Liberties Union to oppose overly ambitious plans for renewing the USA Patriot Act is THEY stand for something and won't fall for anything dictated by an imperious `Do it MY way' leader. The USA Patriot Act is a sticky wicket and smarter folks than me are tasked with solving the challenges. Is the Patriot Act a valuable tool for intel operators fighting the war on terror? * You damnbetcha! Is it potentially dangerous? * Absolutely! Does it represent a significant threat to God given, inalienable Constitutional rights? * Duh?!? Ben Franklin said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." * The Patriot Act personifies that admonition. The signers of the Declaration of Independence closed the document by affirming, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." The Declaration, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are more, much more than mere `piece(s) of paper.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/U6CDDD/izNLAA/cUmLAA/vseplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
