Bush's recent signing statement, last week, challenged at least three-dozen laws specified in the recent Homeland Security bill. He signed the bill with much pomp and circumstance, with legislators standing behind him, patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves for a bill well done. There were pics and stories and e-mails and press releases. The Boston Globe called the White House, knowing their past history, and asked if there would be a signing statement. The White House had no comment, then said, if there is one, it will be released through the proper process, or some such nonsense.
I'm sure the Globe reporters already had a headline with something like, Bush uses signing statement...they just didn't have the details. So, a few hours later, after the stories had been filed, after all deadlines had been met, the President secretly filed the signing statement, knowing it would be at least a day or two before news got out. And he ws right.
Though one challenge seems to have caught everyone's eye. Congress submitted that any future appointment to hold the office of Director of FEMA, have knolwedge of the position, and 5 years experince in emergency management. Sounds pretty resonable to me. I've held positions with far more strenuous job specifications. So why is this an issue?
Because Bush didn't like that suggestion. Which is ironic, since the entire world became aware of the broad scope of this administrations incompetence, dysfunction and cronyism, during hurricane Katrina. And FEMA Director Michael Brown came to embody the epitome of a crony hire.
With the Bush cabal falling down in pieces around him, why on earth would Bush challenge or object to an experienced leader for one of the most important positions within Homeland Security? It would be a non-issue if he would have just abided by what Congress proposed. Instead, it's in the papers, on the news, on the blogs on talk radio, even conservative talk radio is questioning his judgment once again. And it brings the memory of Katrina back to our minds. The agonizing days of horrific tragedy.
Why on earth would he do that with all the other scandalous events crushing his party? I think he is secretly trying to sabotage the GOP.
There are still a few American citizens who don't recognize some of this President's actions should be questioned. But more and more true conservatives and moderates have recognized the abuse of powers and they are speaking up.
Through the years there has been value in signing statements through many administrations. And no one would object to Bush's if they weren't used as a blatant disregard for laws passed by Congress. And for some reason, our Congress is impotent and easily manipulated.
Arlen Spector showed integrity and challenged this abuse, after the ABA published their findings. The ABA found that Bush uses signing statements as a weapon, to get his way. Like a petulant chiild, a frat boy bully.
FYI - GHW Bush utilized the signing statement 232 times; Clinton 140; and our current president is well over 800. GW Bush has utilized this process twice as much as all 42 Presidents in our history, combined.
Here are a few links to stories regarding the use of signing statements, history, impact, danger, etc. I'm posting small excerpts from the various stories and a link to the full story. Some are from true Conservatives, some are from Conservative media sources, some are from liberal media sources. I want to illustrate the contempt from across the political spectrum towards this administrations obvious abuse of power. And this is just concerning one issue! Some are easier to read than others. I hope you will read them, and then make up your own mind. I have studied the constitution, so I find it utterly sickening when I hear someone say, "He's just using his constitutional powers" No, he isn't. He's abusing ours.
*********************************************************
Bush's Signing Statements Are a Real Danger (this article is on most conservative blogs and websites)
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=766
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/060718bb.asp
by Bob Barr - Roll Call - - July 2006
Late in June, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter (R), presided over a hearing about presidential signing statements. This might seem an obscure issue, of little importance in Americans' daily lives. However, presidential signing statements go to the very heart of our country's system of checks and balances.
Throughout history, signing statements have been used to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill or express satisfaction or displeasure with legislation passed by Congress. More recently, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have used signing statements to express constitutional and other objections to legislation, influence judicial interpretation and otherwise advance policy goals.
But the current president, George W. Bush, has further transformed the use of the presidential signing statement. On numerous occasions, he has used this mechanism to challenge or deny effect to legislation that he considers unconstitutional, but nonetheless signs. This is where we begin to tread into uncharted — and, I believe, constitutionally dangerous — territory....
In a democracy, such assertions of power do not happen in a vacuum. They affect the careful balance of power in our system of government. The executive branch is not free to unilaterally change that balance; our Constitution requires legislative and judicial involvement to ensure public debate and oversight and to guard against centralization of power....
In his nearly six years in office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill. Instead, he has signed bills into law and then issued signing statements that declare he will not give them, or a provision of them, effect. In doing this, the president is cutting off the negotiation and usurping the power of Congress. He effectively is vetoing the law without giving Congress the opportunity to override his veto or address his concerns, as required by the Constitution."
********************************************************
Bush Cites Authority to Bypass FEMA Law
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/05/MNGVULIE8C1.DTL
Charlie Savage -- Boston Globe -- October 6, 2006
"Bush's remarks at the signing ceremony were quickly e-mailed to reporters, and the White House website highlighted the ceremony. By contrast, the White House minimized attention to the signing statement. When asked by the Globe on Wednesday afternoon if there would be a signing statement, the press office declined to comment, saying only that any such document, if it existed, would be issued in the ``usual way."
Bush is the first president in modern history to only veto one bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. He signs the bills with much pomp and circumstance, inviting the legislators to the signing, and glorifying them with praise.
Once the media has left to file their stories and pictures, Bush quietly files the "signing statements," which are recorded in the public register, making his official objections and laying out his legal interpretation of the bill.
Through the years there has been value in signing statements through many administrations. And no one would object to Bush's if they weren't used as a blatant disregard for laws passed by a rubber stamp Congress.
*********************************************************************
Legal Group Says Bush Undermines Law By Ignoring Select Parts of Bill
By Robert Pear -- NY times -- July 2006
"In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.
These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a "line-item veto" and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said....
The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president "must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto."
The article lists several ways Bush's signing statements are changing the definitions of the three branches of government as laid out in our Constitution.
"In his first term, the panel said, Mr. Bush raised 505 constitutional objections to new laws. On 82 occasions, he asserted that he alone could supervise, direct and control the operations of the executive branch, under a doctrine known as the "unitary executive."
Whenever Congress directs the president to furnish information, Mr. Bush reserves the right to withhold it. When Congress imposes mandates and requirements on the executive branch, the president often says he will read them as advisory or "precatory."
When Congress tries to define foreign policy — for example, on Russia, Syria, North Korea or Sudan — Mr. Bush objects. Even if he agrees with the policy, he asserts that the Congressional directives "impermissibly interfere with the president's constitutional authority" to conduct foreign affairs.
Whenever Congress prescribes qualifications for presidential appointees, Mr. Bush complains that this is an intrusion on his power, even if Congress merely requires that the appointee know about the field for which he will be responsible.
When Congress requires outreach or affirmative action for women or members of certain racial or ethnic groups, the president demurs, saying such provisions must be carried out "in a manner consistent with the requirements of equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."
Ultimately, Bush's continued disregard of the constitution, and the belittling of Congress, is going to take it's toll on the people.
**********************************************************
Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws
Charlie Savage - Boston Globe April 2006 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
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....
Philip 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."
Examples and dates of Bush's signing statements:
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Prohibits US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
UNCHECKED ABUSE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001536.html
Editorial -- Washington Post -- January 11, 2006
CONGRESS VOTED by an overwhelming margin last month to ban all U.S. personnel from inflicting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment on any prisoner held anywhere by the United States. President Bush, who had threatened to veto the legislation, instead invited its prime sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), to the White House for a public reconciliation and declared they had a common objective: "to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture."
From all that, it might be concluded that the Bush administration has committed itself to ending the use of practices falling just short of torture that it has used on foreign detainees since 2002. But it has not. Instead, it is explicitly reserving the right to abuse prisoners, while denying them any opportunity to seek redress in court. Having publicly accepted the ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Mr. Bush is planning to ignore it whenever he chooses.
The president made his intentions clear in signing the defense bill containing the McCain amendment last month. Mr. Bush issued a presidential signing statement saying his administration would interpret the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
***********************************************************
UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2006 – Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush's authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force.
To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President's right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional.
The Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine was created by ABA President Michael S. Greco with the approval of the ABA Board of Governors in June, to examine the changing role of presidential signing statements after the Boston Globe on April 30 revealed an exclusive reliance on presidential signing statements, in lieu of vetoes, by the Bush Administration.
In appointing the special task force Greco said, "The use of presidential signing statements raises serious issues relating to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. I have appointed the Task Force to take a balanced, scholarly look at the use and implications of signing statements, and to propose appropriate ABA policy consistent with our Association's commitment to safeguarding the rule of law and the separation of powers in our system of government."
*******************************************************************
George W Bush, Edgar Allan Poe, and the use and abuse of the Presidential Signing Statement
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00262.x
Philip Cooper -- Presidential Studies Quarterly -- September 2005
This article considers how George W. Bush chose to use the presidential signing statement and the ways in which the administration's application of this tool of direct presidential action in its first term represents a set of important initiatives. The Bush administration has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement, not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify but also to reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress. What is almost as interesting is the fact that so few in Congress, the media, or the scholarly community are aware that anything has happened at all.
*********************************
Presidential Power And Congressional Acquiescence in the "War" on Terrorism: A New Constitutional Equilibrium
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00015.x
John E. Owens -- Politics and Policy -- June 2006
U.S. presidents have expanded executive power in times of war and emergency, sometimes aggressively so. This article builds on Burnham's application of punctuated equilibria theory to suggest that the combination of President George W. Bush's presidentialist doctrine, the external shock of the 9/11 atrocities and the president's "war" on terror has consolidated a new, constitutional equilibrium between the president and the Congress. While some members of Congress contest the new order, the Congress collectively has acquiesced in its own marginalization. The article surveys a wide range of executive power assertions and legislative retreats AND argues that power assertions and consolidations generally draw on historical precedent and operate nonincrementally within a punctuated pattern.
*****************************************
Lawyers group condemns Bush's abuse of Constitution
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/08/lawyers_group_c.html
By Tara Godvin -- Capitol Hill Blue -- August 10, 2006
The American Bar Association on Tuesday approved a resolution condemning President Bush's practice of writing exceptions to legislation he signs into law.
Bush has vetoed only one bill, on stem cell research, but written exceptions to some 800 legislative provisions, more than all previous presidents combined.
"The constitution says the president has two choices: either sign the bill or veto it. And if you sign it, you can't have your hand behind your back with your fingers crossed," said Michael Greco, the ABA's outgoing president.
The bar delegates urged Congress to require the president to promptly submit copies of any signing statements, along with a report giving the legal basis for his objections.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., submitted a bill last month seeking to ensure that signing statements aren't used to rewrite legislation or veto parts of bills.
**************************************
Legal Experts to Senate Committee: "Bush Signing Statements Unconstitutional"
June 27, 2006
"In a hearing today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on presidential signing statements, which Ranking Member Leahy called "a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances." Recent reports have highlighted how Bush has issued these orders in record numbers and exercised unprecedented overreach by giving himself the authority to ignore certain parts of the laws he signs.
Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto by declaring portions of new laws unconstitutional and offering his own revisions.
"These statements, which have multiplied logarithmically under President George W. Bush, flout the Constitution's checks and balances and separation of powers. They usurp legislative prerogatives and evade accountability," Fein said. "The President does not enjoy a constitutional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it on that count."
Citing Bush's behavior as "alarming," Fein suggested that the President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Constitution."
Also at the hearing, Harvard Law Professor Charles J. Ogletree added, "this excessive exercise of executive power, coupled with the failure to use the authorized veto power, creates serious issues of constitutional magnitude." Bush's abuse of signing statements is "not only bad public policy, but also creates a unilateral and unchecked exercise of authority in one branch of government without the interaction and consideration of the others."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 68
Congress' shameful retreat from American values
Garrison Keillor
October 4, 2006
I would not send my college kid off for a semester abroad if I were you. Last week, we suspended human rights in America, and what goes around comes around. Ixnay habeas corpus.
The U.S. Senate, in all its splendor and majesty, decided that an "enemy combatant" is any non-citizen whom the president says is an enemy combatant, including your Korean greengrocer or your Swedish grandmother or your Czech au pair, and can be arrested and held for as long as authorities wish without any right of appeal to a court of law to examine the matter. If your college kid were to be arrested in Bangkok or Cairo, suspected of "crimes against the state" and held in prison, you'd assume that an American foreign service officer would be able to speak to your kid and arrange for a lawyer, but this may not be true anymore. Be forewarned.
The Senate also decided it's up to the president to decide whether it's OK to make these enemies stand naked in cold rooms for a couple of days in blinding light and be beaten by interrogators. This is now purely a bureaucratic matter: The plenipotentiary stamps the file "enemy combatants" and throws the poor schnooks into prison and at his leisure he tries them by any sort of kangaroo court he wishes to assemble and they have no right to see the evidence against them, and there is no appeal. This was passed by 65 senators and will now be signed by President Bush, put into effect, and in due course be thrown out by the courts.
It's good that Barry Goldwater is dead because this would have killed him. Go back to the Senate of 1964--Goldwater, Dirksen, Russell, McCarthy, Javits, Morse, Fulbright--and you won't find more than 10 votes for it.
None of the men and women who voted for this bill has any right to speak in public about the rule of law anymore, or to take a high moral view of the Third Reich, or to wax poetic about the American Ideal. Mark their names. Any institution of higher learning that grants honorary degrees to these people forfeits its honor. Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor, Roberts, Rockefeller, Salazar, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, Thomas, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner.
To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott: Mark their names and mark them well. For them, no minstrel raptures swell. High though their titles, proud their name, boundless their wealth as wish can claim, these wretched figures shall go down to the vile dust from whence they sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung.
Three Republican senators made a show of opposing the bill and after they'd collected all the praise they could get, they quickly folded. Why be a hero when you can be fairly sure that the court will dispose of this piece of garbage.
If, however, the court does not, then our country has taken a step toward totalitarianism. If the government can round up someone and never be required to explain why, then it's no longer the United States as you and I always understood it. Our enemies have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They have made us become like them.
I got some insight last week into who supports torture when I went down to Dallas to speak at Highland Park Methodist Church. It was spooky. I walked in, was met by two burly security men with walkie-talkies, and within 10 minutes was told by three people that this was the Bushes' church and that it would be better if I didn't talk about politics. I was there on a book tour for "Homegrown Democrat," but they thought it better if I didn't mention it. So I tried to make light of it: I told the audience, "I don't need to talk politics. I have no need even to be interested in politics--I'm a citizen, I have plenty of money and my grandsons are at least 12 years away from being eligible for military service." And the audience applauded! Those were their sentiments exactly. We've got ours, and who cares?
The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo Bay, stripped naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with deafening noise. So why should they worry? It's only the Jews who are in danger, and the homosexuals and gypsies. The Christians are doing fine. If you can't trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust?
----------
Garrison Keillor is a syndicated columnist and host of "A Prairie Home Companion."
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Absolutely excellent article. I have not read a single piece that lays out the case of impeachment of George W. Bush as well as this article. I've read a lot of hearsay and rhetoric, but nothing that substantial. I can only pray, for the sake of our country, that the Democrats can win both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This madness has to be stopped now before we are all truely lost.
Peace
tell me how you would suggest to get info from these people.
let me hear your wisdom. maybe if we tell them we love thema nad give them a hug.
Torture does not work where valid information gathering is concerned. In case you haven't heard, what you get when you torture a person is exactly what they think you want to hear in order to stop the pain. It very rarely resembles truth.
i would sugest you read Brian Ross, ABC News his latest book. He states "The CIA broke 14 high value leaders in secret prisons," Ross declared. "They used coercive techniques. They started with a slap in the chest, then cold rooms, then sleep deprivation, then waterboarding, where you think you are drowning and about to die.
i suggest you read the law it does not apply to u.s. citzens
if you realing on dems winning and changing it i would not hold your breath, they wont if they do they would never get relected after all they have no real ideas of there own.
Great comic relief, there.
This despite the many links I have provided from conservative sources who condemn Bush's usurpation of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights. But those are genuine conservatives as opposed to treasonous right wingers such as those on this forum.
The article is thought provoking, well balanced, and truthful. It deserves attention, considered reflection, and thoughtful commentary.
We can agree to disagree [if, as a pantywaist you are capable of that!] but calling the Boston Globe and NYT [can't even stand typing it out] pro-war .....puhleeeeze!
You are no more capable of identifying a Conservative as Jackie is of identifying reality. She has one point of view, and one point of view only. It is not hard to identify what that view is. Don't give me that "narrow-minded" bs. Re-read her column...now THAT'S what I call open-minded!
Tracy: Direct and overt torture (cutting off fingers, burning, whatever) does not lead to honest and useful information in questioning. However sleep deprivation, humiliation, and other things that break down someone's self identity over time (without physical harm) do return valid results. There is a clear line as to what is torture (physically harming someone is clearly human rights violation), but keeping someone awake for 72 hours on occassion, making them uncomfortable, etc is much better than seeing another 3000 American's dead in NY or anywhere else.
Tracy: So I am confused. Does the left thing that there is a great right wing conspiracy, or do they think that conservatives act independantly on their own values and ideals? The conspiracy is quite borken when there is debate, discussion, and concern as to what direction we should be heading as a country.
I can't speak for the left, I can only speak for myself. I can however give you my opinion as to how our Congress and the national Republican party has responded over the past 6 years. They have been shockingly submissive to the desires of this President and his political advisors, until quite recently. And with all the ethical scandals that so many Congressmen are caught up in, including the Jefferson (D) scandal; and no oversight; in fact, no ethics probes for 26 months now (until the Foley debacle) I wouldn't say there is much to indicate that the so-called conservatives on the hill think or act independently, or in fact, adhere to any conservative values or ideals.
True conservatives do indeed embody many remarkable values, and ideals, and for the most part, whether I agree with them or not, they should be commended for the passion and belief.
Luckily for moderates, Independents and Democrats, these true conservative value voters have had it with this administration, and they will hold these corrupt politicians responsible for actions they find abhorrent, by not voting, and not being as involved in the actual voting day machine. They are upset about many issues that cross party lines, including, run away war spending, border security, spending, homeland security, a crumbling domestic infrastructure. And they feel the conservative party has ignored some of their core issues like: abolishing government programs, drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, appointment of more conservative judges, taxes, security, etc.
In fact, there is a wonderful new book out by Richard A. Viguerie, President of ConservativeHQ.com: The Conservative Headquarters (and dubbed the "funding father" of modern conservative strategy--yes, funding) "Conservatives Betrayed - How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause." He says Republican leaders abandoned their base, and I quote "GOP Corruption, Abuse of Power and Ignoring Conservative Issues Will Keep Many Value Voters at Home Election Day,"
So, I'm quite happy with the apparent lack of ethics, values and ideals that the current majority of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) has shown. It will lead the Democrats to victory of at least one, if not both, Chambers of Congress.
Still another example of right winger forum stupidity. As always, quite typical of the mental deficiency that so accurately reflects this type of political orientation and those who uphold it.
Anyone who read the leadup to the war by both newspapers knows fully well that both promoted Bush's war by pretending that there were innumerable WMD in Iraq. Anyone who denies it did not read those newspapers thereby showing their endless ignorance and bias.
The fact remains that the above article features viewpoints from differing political sides thereby giving it the type of balance and rationality that is needed in public discourse today. Obviously, there are those whose mentality is so warped and ignorance so manifestly irreversible because such truths shatter the illusions that they have succumbed to. It is these ignorant delusionals who have poisoned the atmosphere thereby lessening the amount of rational discourse that we need in these troubled times.
All thanks to Jackie for her balanced and rational presentation.
Thank you so much! It's amazing to me that so many people on both sides refuse to consider differig views, wven when presented in black and white! I've accpeted paychecks from Republicans and Democrats. I don't agree with most of Bush's current policies, or those of his administration.
And luckily for us, either do the majority of Americans, that includes representatives from every political persuasion!
A fine article. In fact, a bit too fine, as I think breaking this up into two or even three articles would befit the steady drumbeat of usurpation of power that the great unider signs over to his unified executive self,
SO you're saying that the above article is just a bunch of liberal clap-trap? Capital Hill Blue is a liberal rag? Bob Barr is a liberal panty waste? John E. Owens is a liberal? So you follow the Reich-wing standard that anyone that make a case against this President's abuse of power is a Liberal? Now before you answer and embarrass yourself, you better check your facts.
Just checkin'.
Peace
Thanks for the great comments. John, you are right. This should have been a 3 parter. It started as a response to one of Thomas W's request for "facts" to one of my other posts...you can read it here:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976810372
So, here are the facts. And he won't read them.
Thomas --
CLICK ON THE LINKS, BROTHER....I've done all the work for you!
The sad part is, I cut out several more examples of what I thought Thomas would find too liberal, and included the ones from conservative sites! It was just overkill, and it made me sadder and madder. Bush could have had a great presidency, and blazed a great
trail towards a positive legacy. He had all the tools, and he certainly had the brain power to support what he was personally lacking.
That is what many neo-sheep, neo-cons, conservatives and others who refuse to take a hard critical look at this administrations many missteps, fail to recognize.
Just look at all the former neo-cons jumping ship. Fuykayama, Wolfowicz is gone, you should have heard Richard Pearle this morning (Mr. PNAC), I actually agreed with him as he discussed the failures of Bush's foreign policy, and Condi's lack of diplomatic skills.
They are all over their heads, and rather than expanding their pool of knowledge, they closed ranks and it's now like a bunch of deliverance cousins, inbred and incompetent to move the nation forward.
I pray for Bush every night. I pray for all of us every night. I bet there are some from the other side who would never consider reciprocating.
I pray, also, for everyone.
In June 2006
Hamdan vs Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
"In a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice Roberts abstaining), the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush did not have authority to set up military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, finding the "military commissions" illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. The opinion of the Court, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, declares that "the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."
NY Times
WASHINGTON, June 29 — The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration's plan to put Guantánamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law.
And then there was:
"In Rasul v.Bush, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of prisoners in U.S. military custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge the legality of their detention in federal court."
Both of the two innocent people that I heard of who have been released from US Sanctioned torture prisons confessed to being terrorists under the interrogation techniques that you are protecting. They did so to tell the interogators what they wanted to hear. How can you defend a system of interrogation that renders faulty information to shape foreign policy? You PRETEND to be patriots but you are not. If you really want to win a "War on Terror" then stop fighting a WAR ON THE TRUTH. You are TRAITORS TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY.
" you libs have to rember they want to kill you to and will do anything to do this. Yes they want to kill libs to nothing but submiting to them will prevent this."
- I think you are right. The only chance for the administration to continue in the current unchecked direction would be for the citizens and the representatives of this country to remember this -as you said. This is the only chance that the new, frightening, undemocratic ideology has to get its intire body in the door, not just its foot, leg, arm and shoulder. But i think its a good idea to ask at least the rational question of "Who benefits?" from the overblown fear campaign? If there are small groups of rich men growing more and more powerful, and they happen to be the same group promoting the fear, let it make you suspicious. Hopefully the suspicion would drive you to do just a bit of research.
"will you submit. How many 1000's of people must die to make you want to fight back."
not any more; I'm ready. Our only chance is to view the "terrorists" as real live humans with rational and self-justified desires and hopes, and then look at the cause-and-effect sequences that have resulted in their hope and desire to destroy american lives.
Or we could keep saying that they hate freedom and democracy and have been evil democracy haters since the beginning of their civilization, and we'd most definately get a lot accomplished that way. Or at least the rich powerful men building freedom embassies and making millions in their contries will. That irrational and overblown fear is compliance with our government sucking our tax dollars out of important programs and quite literally giving them to companies they used to own.
"You are TRAITORS TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY." I see...because people have different opinions then you, and decide to express them (as the First Amendment permits us) you classify them as traitors to the very freedom and democracy you claim to defend.
Jackie, I re-read this article, and it is very intriguing. Unfortunately I have become well aware (from your other articles and praises of other pieces) that you fall into the realm of the extreme left. So I originally did not give this article the chance it probably deserved. You have actually interested me enough that I will look for more information on these 'signing statements'
"When most people hear the word "fascism" they may think of the racism and anti-Semitism of Mussolini and Hitler. It is true that the use of force and the scapegoating of fringe groups are part of every fascism. But there was also an economic dimension of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," which was an essential ingredient of Mussolini's and Hitler's tyrannies. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a model by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. ...Fortune magazine ran a cover story on Mussolini in 1934, praising his fascism for its ability to break worker unions, disempower workers and transfer huge sums of money to those who controlled the money rather than those who earned it.
Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s. Yet reviewing our past may help shed light on our present, and point the way to a better future. So I want to begin by looking back to the last time fascism posed a serious threat to America.
In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here," a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy — those concerned with individual rights and freedoms — as anti-American. That was 69 years ago.
One of the most outspoken American fascists from the 1930s was economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American Fascism — a coming which he anticipated and cheered — Dennis declared that defenders of "18th-century Americanism" were sure to become "the laughing stock of their own countrymen." The big stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis bemoaned, was "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights."
So it is important for us to recognize that, as an economic system, fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and '30s, and nearly worshiped by some powerful American industrialists. And fascism has always, and explicitly, been opposed to liberalism of all kinds.
Mussolini, who helped create modern fascism, viewed liberal ideas as the enemy. "The Fascist conception of life," he wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual." (In 1932 Mussolini wrote, with the help of Giovanni Gentile, an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. You can read the whole entry at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html )
Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: The essence of fascism, he believed, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people.
Still, fascism is a word that is completely foreign to most of us. We need to know what it is, and how we can know it when we see it.
What's coming
The theft of all social security funds, to be transferred to those who control money, and the increasing destitution of all those dependent on social security and social welfare programs.
Rising numbers of uninsured people in this country that already has the highest percentage of citizens without health insurance in the developed world.
Increased loss of funding for public education combined with increased support for vouchers, urging Americans to entrust their children's education to Christian schools.
More restrictions on civil liberties as America is turned into the police state necessary for fascism to work
Withdrawal of virtually all funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. At their best, these media sometimes encourage critical questioning, so they are correctly seen as enemies of the state's official stories.
The reinstatement of a draft, from which the children of privileged parents will again be mostly exempt, leaving our poorest children to fight and die in wars of imperialism and greed that could never benefit them anyway. (That was my one-sentence Veterans' Day sermon for this year.)
More imperialistic invasions: of Iran and others, and the construction of a huge permanent embassy in Iraq.
More restrictions on speech, under the flag of national security.
Control of the internet to remove or cripple it as an instrument of free communication that is exempt from government control. This will be presented as a necessary anti-terrorist measure.
Efforts to remove the tax-exempt status of churches like this one, and to characterize them as anti-American.
Tighter control of the editorial bias of almost all media, and demonization of the few media they are unable to control – the New York Times, for instance.
Continued outsourcing of jobs, including more white-collar jobs, to produce greater profits for those who control the money and direct the society, while simultaneously reducing America's workers to a more desperate and powerless status.
Moves in the banking industry to make it impossible for an increasing number of Americans to own their homes. As they did in the 1930s, those who control the money know that it is to their advantage and profit to keep others renting rather than owning.
Criminalization of those who protest, as un-American, with arrests, detentions and harassment increasing. We already have a higher percentage of our citizens in prison than any other country in the world. That percentage will increase.
In the near future, it will be illegal or at least dangerous to say the things I have said here this morning. In the fascist story, these things are un-American. In the real history of a democratic America, they were seen as profoundly patriotic, as the kind of critical questions that kept the American spirit alive — the kind of questions, incidentally, that our media were supposed to be pressing."
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976810900
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. As Jackie also did. Hoorah! to the both of you!
Peace
Your articulate, well researched and succinct remarks are chilling, and damn it, I pray that you are mistaken with your bleak view of our future. Unfortunately I don't believe you are.
With all of the world's wealth securely held in by a handful of greedy, amoral co-conspirators, it appears that all of us who value freedom and humanity over the almighty dollar are totally f**ked.
The thing that bothers me in American politics is that there is nothing, absoloutely nothing, that isn't reduced to a liberal or conservative issue. If there was only one thing that could bring us together as a country, I would have thought it would be our abhorrence, disgust and rejection of torture. It literally pains me how quickly some people, mainly those in the Republican party who are so quick to shout about their high moral standards, will give up their prinicples as both Americans and humans because of their fear. I remember reading about atrocities in Germany, Poland and Yugoslavia during WWII, and a common theme in the pieces I was reading was how easily average people under the right circumstances can turn to monsters. We saw this in our own generation with Yugoslavia, when people who had lived together reasonably peacefully turned on each other because of ethnic tensions that were fired by politicians. I guess I've been naive or too idealistic or something, because I always thought that Americans were different in that regard.
I know it seems that I digress, but there is a point to this. One of the little phrases that Bush repeatedly uses in those signing statments is "the unitary executive" or "the unitary executive branch." I'm not making that up. That is just double speak for a dictator, in my opinion.
So when I see Americans supporting a president who secretly writes little ammendments to bills that, in effect, put him above the law, and especially a bill that negates fundamental western law that has served us well since the 1200s, and that permits torture, and there is that little "unitary executive " statement, well... that is what makes me afraid.
It makes me think of two quotes.
1) Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
2) First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. Martin Niemoeller of Nazi Germany
That was a poor attempt to be humorous by doing the very thing I was criticizing. After reading it, though, I realize it just came through as hypocritical. Just thought I'd point that out before a people jump on me about being hypocritical.
And thanx for citing articles on it from both sides. It DOES go to illustrate that regardless of where you stand on any given issue 800 is clearly excessive.
GREAT informative article.
http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1031858822.pdf#search=%22signing%20statement%22
Another article referred to a book written in 2002: "Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements. His 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, assesses the uses and abuses of signing statements by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
He followed this up with an essay outlining W's use/abuse of these statements.
On another note, Clarke M., normally I hear Democrats accusing the Republicans of being the party of fear, using scare tactics to compel people to their point of view. If your last post was not the epitome a 'the sky is falling' scare tactic, I do not know what would qualify. Sorry, but as an independent that is the exact type of post/article that drives me away from the left's legitimate arguments, such as the over use of these statements. Just my 2 cents, another couple of dollars and you could get a cup of coffee.
You have not read the full balance of my work. Nor have I read the full balance of yours. What you have read of mine, is recent and filtered through the most recent past of current events. As I have stated numerous times, in posts and comments. I have been paid for consulting work by both Democrats and Republicans. I am socially liberal, but I am most definitely fiscally conservative. I believe there is far too much waste, fraud and corruption in government; on the local level, the state level and the federal level. I normally vote the person not the party. In the past, I have had many Democrats condemn me as vociferously as you have.
So, I guess I am doing a great job on balance. When I piss off everyone, that means I'm not beholden to anyone. But at this point in time, for the safety or our country and our world standing, we desperately need oversight from a Congress that has let all of us down. And I'm talking the entire Congress. I hope Democrats take back at least one chamber of Congress, that is the only way there will be balance, and true oversight. But I also hope with all my heart that at least a few Independents, Libertarians, Greens, whatever, can get a place at the table.
Until we show the powers that be that we are fed up with corruption, deadlock, run away spending, broken borders, lack of sufficient Homeland Security, and all the other issues that have lay dormant for 6 years; by voting in new people, new thoughts, new ideas, and hopefully less tainted representatives, we will continue to suffer.
We need representatives that will work together, a president and administration that is not so insular, and feels confident enough to invite criticisms, and fresh ideas; and then implement them. We all need to put partisan ship aside.
I hope you'll read my upcoming post RE: the role of the media, the politicians and the plethora of writers who have helped to cement the division between us. As Americans there is no way that my hopes, needs and desires are far off from yours. It's just impossible. We all want basically the same things. Yet, writers are writing books bashing one side, and appealing to the people who already agree with them. That's not healthy for our republic.
Thanks again everyone for reading the post! And I hope we can continue to work together to see each other's sides, and bring our own views forward in a safe secure environment.
And BTW, I have another 21 articles and citations on this article that I chose to leave out, as it was so long already. I can and will send them or make a new post if anyone is interested. Steves two mentions are part of the list.
"We need representatives that will work together, a president and administration that is not so insular, and feels confident enough to invite criticisms, and fresh ideas; and then implement them. We all need to put partisan ship aside."
How true, Jackie.....this administration is VERY aware that: "Divided We Fall"...
Americans...it is now time to UNITE.....we need to put aside our old separate viewpoints and realize that we are being divided so we may be conquered.
Wake up and smell the coffee!!
You are wrong.
I'm afraid, Jackie, this Congress is afraid of being charged with treason, just because they do not agree with the President.
So, now the Dems will take the house, most probably the Senate; and those foolish neo-sheep who have been going along with Bush (uneasily I might add), will be voting with the Dems as the investigations start. Just wait and see.....hypocrisy at it's worst.
Through trickery, contortion of law and outright theft of votes this administration came to power with the Zionist money and agenda in hand to go to war with it's enemies. The agenda fits well with greedy oil tycoons who will sacrifice every so called freedom we have for profit, so I'm not at all surprised that he has abused the signing statement benefit of his presidency. The Congress is made up of nothing more than a bunch of political puppets who barely can legislate laws that govern domestic issues, and absolutely useless, incompetent and impotent when it comes to foreign affairs! Ask yourself, how could it be that the whole of Congress with all of it's intelligent members be so divided and hoodwinked unless there was a concerted effort by those in the shadows and yes even in the media to make this war thing happen. These shadowy figures are very powerful people who make and break careers at a whim, control entire industries and infiltrate governments and unify to exert control. While Mel Gibson was ranting in a drunken stupor, he was temporarily expressing what he and others have learned. He was apologetic only after becoming sober, he realised who really controls his career. I'll probally be called an anti semite and I don't give s***, I not a movie star.
No Steve Y, you don't see. They can express whatever they want, that is not the action I am calling traitorous. I call these people TRAITORS TO DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM because they are supportive of concepts against democracy and freedom. They support a system of interrogation (TORTURE) that is yeilding false information that CAUSES THE INNOCENT TO DECLARE GUILT. This information is used to form our foreign policy. Like say IRAQ. They can say whatever they want, I will defend their right to do so, but they are still TRAITORS TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY if they support allowing a system to exist where our "Allies in the War on Terror" can use our country to make people they don't like disappear simply by labling them an enemy combatant.
'Education is a progressive discovery of our ignorance'...you have a lot to learn.
I read an article recently here on Gather that actually looked at the term....maybe you should try and enlighten yourself (hate is not eductated):
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976811809
I've worked in politics, in the US and abroad. Believe it or not, those shadowy figures I mention come in all races, creeds, religions, and governments. They walk amongst us; some are supposed to represent us, some are meant to help us, but many could give a shit about us. They are politicians, lawmakers, government attaches, movers and shakers and leaders, and big corporations. As long as there super secret, good ole boy networks and agencies -- we are doomed.
There are so many examples of how they can impact our lives greatly, and dangerously through the most innocuous "take it for granted" tasks. Like voting. Here's an interesting piece of information from the 2004 election fiasco in Ohio, which is still under investigation"
"All you need is software to steal an election. It is just that unwitting journalists and members of the public are lulled into a false sense of security by blatantly misleading statements...that it would take "hundreds" of people's involvement.
Did you know that Sequoia, one of the big vendors of electronic voting machines in the country is owned by The Carlyse group? Did you know that the Carlyse Group has the elder George Bush sitting on its Board of Directors? Did you know that George W. Bush just bought a $ 2.5 million yacht and named it "Sequoia"?* Did you know that the only three vendors that Blackwell (Ohio's Secretary of State) has chosen for use in Ohio, Diebold (decertified in California - CEO Wally O'Dell wrote in a fund raising letter, "I pledge to deliver the electoral votes of Ohio to the President in 2004" - and then he did - O'Dell raised over $ 100,000 for the Bush 2004 campaign), ES&S (owned by an Ursevich brother, whose brother owns Diebold) and Hart InterCivic, all have far right-wing origins and ownership? (See, www.blackboxvoting.org )"
This is one example from one election year (2004), but there are 14 other states with numerous counties currently going through the courts system regarding the e-voting missaps in 2002 & 2004.
Now, any good Democrat, Independant, Republican or conservative who fails to take any of this factual evidence under consideration, and admit there good be some illegal activity; is certainly under false assumptions regarding democracy, corruption, and the ability of some to disregard the rights of the majority of Americans.
This is one example of how those in power can corrupt a system, due to lack of oversight, hubris and the the unfortunate "power at all cost" mentality.
The far left of this site always seem to be ready to pounce quickly on an opinion that is contradictory to their own, but when someone like DP offers a comment that 'slightly' reinforces your beliefs, but wraps it in what can only be described as hate speech, there is no rebuke. Your silence is deafening.
"Through trickery, contortion of law and outright theft of votes this administration came to power with the Zionist money and agenda in hand to go to war with it's enemies"
"Mel Gibson was ranting in a drunken stupor, he was temporarily expressing what he and others have learned. He was apologetic only after becoming sober, he realised who really controls his career. I'll probally be called an anti semite and I don't give s***, I not a movie star. "
Comments that are blatantly filled with hate, and nota word from any of you refuting such Hitlerism statements.
Glenn D., no comments on the traitorous speech from DP? Obviously such statement surely go against the core principles of America, built on religious tolerance and freedom?
Cheri D., this cannot be your vision of Americans uniting?
L.A. Gould: "Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."…DP appears to be lining up that same agenda, and nothing from you either?
Clarke M. you ramble on about the current administration drifting towards fascism, DP's statements would have earned him an esteemed position in the SS, but no 2 page condemnation from you as well?
Lucky "It is these ignorant delusionals who have poisoned the atmosphere thereby lessening the amount of rational discourse that we need in these troubled times." DP's argument is not 'poisonous'?
How about you Clark Kent, surely you can find the furthest left phone booth available and whip out your cape to discredit such hate speech?
Anyone?
Why do you paint the entire Jewish race with such a broad brush? If you have ever heard of the Neturi Karta movement then you would know, like obviously everyone else, does that my statements doesn't include everyone of Jewish descent. If I had said that all Jews are shadowdy figures with evil intentions then you would have a point, but it seems that if one utters anything about a person of Jewish descent then he's a racist. Who gave you the authority to censor speech? You seem to be a person of average intellect Steve, go here http://www.nkusa.org/. Free your mind.
1. Zionist don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind.
2. Zionist are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.
3. Zionist are more loyal to Israel than to this country.
4. Zionist have too much power in the business world.
5. Zionist have lots of irritating faults.
6. Zionist stick together more than other Americans (or citizens of other countries).
7. Zionist always like to be at the head of things.
8. Zionist have too much power in international finance markets.
9. Zionist have too much power in our country today.
10. Zionist business people are so shrewd that others do not have a fair chance to compete.
11. Zionist are not as honest as other business people.
(adapted from Evil Intentions? by DP; Gather comments, 2006, p. 1)
With how many of these do you agree Charles?
Well DP, straight from the LA Times, here are MR. Gibson's statements "Gibson blurted out a barrage of anti-Semitic remarks about "(profanity redacted) Jews." Gibson yelled out, "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked, "Are you a Jew?""...hmm, nothing referring to Zionists, his statements were clearly directed at Jews...
While Mel has apologized for his drunken tirade, you have proudly stated you would not have done so, and that "he was temporarily expressing what he and others have learned."...
DP, you hide your hate for Jews behind a 'Zionist' title...are you that weak that you cannot just admit your true beliefs? Either way, you are pathetic and your excuses do not pass the 'smell' test
word Zionism and the acts of vicious Zionist then this conversation has reached it's limits and any further posts would be well.... redundant. However I will leave you with one last post. Stevie what the f*** are you talking about????
Contrary to common perception, Jewish anti-Zionism is not restricted exclusively to the well know Jewish anti-Zionist movements such as Satmar and Neturei Karta.
There are in fact many Jewish movements, groups and organizations whose ideology regarding Zionism and the so-called "State of Israel" is that of the unadulterated Torah position that any form of Zionism is heresy and that the existence of the so-called "State of Israel" is illegitimate.
No one has had to create any antagonism between our Torah and Zionism because such antagonism exists by virtue of the essence of Judaism itself, which can never tolerate the heresy of Zionism.
Zionism is wrong from the Torah viewpoint, not because many of its adherents are lax in practice or even anti-religious, but because its fundamental principle conflicts with the Torah.
Unfortunately, due to many undesirable factors, the view of Torah-true Jewry has been concealed from the general public.
We, the staff at www.jewsnotzionists.org are delighted that with the advance in media technology a substantial benefit to researchers, students, and the general public has been made available. We are elated at the advantage which the internet provides for the presentation of and accessibility to a position so widely held yet so deliberately ignored by many a Zionist-inclined medium.
It is our hope that the information presented on this site will be of benefit to all and that we soon merit the peaceful dismantlement of the so-called "State of Israel" and that Jewish-Muslim brotherhood be restored as prior to the arrival of the Zionist scheme on the global scene.