| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"PagCal" |
| Date: |
25 Jul 2006 04:01:44 AM |
| Object: |
Fascist Bush uses unconstitutional signing statements |
An Imminent Threat (to the Constitution)
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, July 24, 2006; 2:10 PM
A blistering report out today from a blue-ribbon legal panel
dramatically establishes how President Bush's use of signing statements
to assert his right to ignore legislation passed by Congress undermines
the rule of law and the constitutional system of separation of powers.
The report, from an American Bar Association task force, goes a long way
toward establishing the parameters for what could be a ferocious and
consequential debate -- or an unparalleled acquiescence to an
executive-branch power grab.
The task force members outline a clear path to the restoration of the
traditional balance of powers. But will the Republican-controlled
Congress step up to the plate?
And will today's coverage of the report by the traditional media lead to
a continued examination of this important story? Or will the press allow
what the task force describes as an imminent threat to the Constitution
slide back off the national agenda?
Here is the full report . Here is some background on the panel's members
.. Here is a news release . I wrote at some length about signing
statements last month over at NiemanWatchdog.org . Here is Charlie
Savage 's seminal Boston Globe piece from April. Here is an archive of
signing statements.
The Coverage
Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: "A panel of legal
scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is
sharply criticizing the use of 'signing statements' by President Bush
that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
"In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has
lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous
presidents combined. . . .
"The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing
statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws including a
congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot Act,
whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting
rebels in Colombia."
Charlie Savage , the Globe reporter widely credited with bringing the
story to national attention, writes today: "President Bush should stop
issuing statements claiming the power to bypass parts of laws he has
signed, an American Bar Association task force has unanimously concluded
in a strongly worded 32-page report that is scheduled to be released
today. . . .
"Citing an expansive theory of executive power that is not supported by
most legal scholars, the administration has declared that the
Constitution puts Bush beyond the reach of Congress in military matters
and executive branch operations. . . .
"The Constitution requires the president either to veto a bill in its
entirety -- giving Congress a chance to override his decision -- or to
sign the bill and enforce all its components as Congress wrote them,
they said.
" 'A line-item veto is not a constitutionally permissible alternative,
even when the president believes that some provisions of a bill are
unconstitutional. . . . A president could easily contrive a
constitutional excuse to decline enforcement of any law he deplored, and
transform his qualified veto into a monarch-like absolute veto,' the
panel wrote."
The report states that as of July 11, Bush had raised objections to a
total of 807 provisions in more than 100 laws, on the grounds that they
infringed on his prerogatives.
Robert Pear writes in the New York Times: "The panel said Mr. Bush's
signing statements often used the same formulaic language, with 'no
citation of authority or detailed explanation.' It urged Congress to
pass a law requiring the president to 'set forth in full the reasons and
legal basis' for any signing statement in which he says he can disregard
or decline to enforce a statute.
"In another recommendation, the panel suggested legislation to provide
for judicial review of signing statements. It acknowledged that the
Supreme Court had been reluctant to hear cases filed by members of
Congress because lawmakers generally did not suffer the type of concrete
personal injury needed to create a 'case or controversy.' But the panel
said that 'Congress as an institution or its agents' should have
standing to sue when the president announces he will not enforce parts
of a law."
Other Ways to Say No
Sheryl Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "Conventional wisdom holds
that Mr. Bush went more than five years without exercising his veto
power simply because he did not have to: the Republicans who control
Congress gave him everything he wanted.
"That is, for the most part, true. But Mr. Bush has also found ways of
exercising control over (or circumventing) Congress without using the
veto. When Mr. Bush wanted to empower federal authorities to monitor the
international communications of suspected terrorists, he did so by
issuing a secret executive order, avoiding a possible legislative battle
-- and the potential veto that might go along with it.
"And when Congress last year passed a legislative amendment barring
cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees in American
custody, Mr. Bush -- who had threatened a veto but ultimately backed
down -- tacked a 'signing statement' onto the measure, asserting that he
could interpret the amendment as he deemed fit with his constitutional
authority as commander in chief.
" 'President Bush has vetoed things without vetoing them,' said Julian
Zelizer, a professor of history at Boston University. 'He's kind of
found alternative ways in which he can basically say no to Congress
without publicly saying no, or publicly having the confrontation.' "
And David Cay Johnston , also in the New York Times, illustrates yet
another way Bush can act unilaterally: "The federal government is moving
to eliminate the jobs of nearly half of the lawyers at the Internal
Revenue Service who audit tax returns of some of the wealthiest
Americans, specifically those who are subject to gift and estate taxes
when they transfer parts of their fortunes to their children and others.
.. . .
"Sharyn Phillips, a veteran I.R.S. estate tax lawyer in Manhattan,
called the cuts a 'back-door way for the Bush administration to achieve
what it cannot get from Congress, which is repeal of the estate tax.' "
Diplomacy, Bush Style
For its cover story this week, Newsweek was granted unusual access to
Bush during his recent trip -- including "four free-wheeling interviews
and hundreds of candid photographs" -- even as yet another corner of the
Middle East erupted in violence.
So did the magazine emerge with a case study in White House
decision-making? No such luck. Apparently, that remained off limits. (Or
happened off stage.)
There is some interesting stuff here, however. My takeaway from Richard
Wolffe 's piece is that Bush's worldview has not evolved one bit since
Sept. 11, and that while the president may have gotten better at giving
the impression of being diplomatic, true diplomacy still eludes him.
Wolffe writes that "Bush thinks the new war vindicates his early vision
of the region's struggle: of good versus evil, civilization versus
terrorism, freedom versus Islamic fascism. He still believes that when
it comes to war and terror, leaders need to decide whose side they are on.
"But after Iraq, many of those leaders find it hard to rush to Bush's
side, and he has struggled to win them back. Over the past three years,
since the invasion, his options have narrowed; circumstances have taught
him to speak the language of diplomacy more fluently. Yet he still
trusts his gut to tell him what's right, and he still expects others to
follow his lead.
"For Bush, diplomacy is not the art of a negotiated compromise. It's a
smoother way to get where he wants to go."
Here's the scene on the flight to the St. Petersburg summit: "Bush may
deplore the loss of life, but he also sees the crisis as an
extraordinary opportunity. 'I view this as the forces of instability
probing weakness. I think they're testing resolve in many ways,' he
tells Newsweek. . . . 'Sometimes, in order to get others to act with
us,' he says, 'there has to be conditions on the ground that make the
case better than I can make it.' It hasn't always turned out that way:
in Iraq, conditions on the ground have long conspired against Bush and
driven allies away."
But days later, when Bush is happily ensconced on Air Force One on his
way home, nothing has really been resolved.
Wolffe writes: "[A]s the crisis in Lebanon deepens, Bush's allies and
critics question the depth of his commitment to diplomacy. Is he really
embracing the United Nations or using the slow diplomatic process to buy
more time for Israeli forces to destroy Hizbullah?"
Odds and Ends
Here's Bush on his own charm: "I guess one of the things I've learned
from my family, both Father and Mother -- in many ways, it's
interesting, it's from Mother -- is the ability to get people to relax,
to try to put people at ease."
There was plenty of reason to assume that the Russians had bugged pretty
much everything, and Wolffe writes: "The only totally secure place is
the president's armored, soundproofed limo, which the White House has
airlifted to Russia. Whenever Bush's advisers want to strategize about
Putin, they're forced to sit in the car, parked in the driveway."
And while there's nothing in this story that sheds any light on how the
big decisions were made, here's one image of Bush not as the Decider,
but as the (impatient) Deliverer: "Bush has a full day ahead . . . but
first his aides have a long list of subjects to cover with him. In a
prebriefing session they try to cram him with talking points on a vast
array of issues. Bush, who hates to get bogged down in the weeds, has
heard enough. 'How long do you want this list to be?' he snaps."
How Revealing?
Wolffe writes in his piece that in his interviews, Bush was "unusually
relaxed, revealing a president by turns playful and pensive, stubborn
and accommodating, as he grappled with the biggest foreign crisis of his
second term."
But Greg Sargent blogs for the liberal American Prospect: "Despite all
this access, there's no evidence at all that Bush was asked a single
tough question during the 'four freewheeling interviews' granted to
Newsweek. It's also unclear from the piece whether Bush even made a
single meaningful decision at all during his 'handling' of this crisis,
though this seems to be lost on the article's writer and editors. The
point is, access like this rarely grants readers much in the way of
genuine insight or understanding, and this piece is no exception."
Me, I'd like to see the interview transcripts. Did Bush duck the tough
questions? Did he answer like a man who was in fact making decisions, or
was being informed of them?
Pressure From the Saudis
Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright write in The Washington Post: "The
Saudi foreign minister personally urged President Bush yesterday to
intervene to stop the violence in Lebanon, the most direct sign of
mounting frustration among key Arab states with what they see as a
hands-off U.S. posture toward Israeli strikes against Hezbollah.
"In an Oval Office meeting yesterday afternoon, Prince Saud al-Faisal
said, he delivered a letter to Bush from Saudi King Abdullah asking for
U.S. help in arranging an immediate cease-fire, a stance U.S. officials
have repeatedly rejected on the grounds that it is premature. U.S.
officials would not comment directly on the request, saying only that
the two sides discussed the humanitarian situation, reconstruction and
how to end the violence."
While there's no evidence that the visit will have any effect on U.S.
policy, it is worth noting that Bush cut short his planned stay in
Crawford to meet with the Saudis.
Fiasco
Washington Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks is out with a new book called
Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.
On Meet the Press ( transcript ; video ), host Tim Russert read a
passage from the book: "This book's subtitle terms the U.S. effort in
Iraq an adventure in the critical sense of adventurism -- that is, with
the view that the U.S.-led invasion was launched recklessly, with a
flawed plan for war and a worse approach to occupation. Spooked by its
own false conclusions about the threat, the Bush administration hurried
its diplomacy, short-circuited its war planning, and assembled an
agonizingly incompetent occupation. None of this was inevitable. It was
made possible only through the intellectual acrobatics of simultaneously
'worst-casing' the threat presented by Iraq while 'best-casing' the
subsequent cost and difficulty of occupying the country.' "
Russert asked Ricks: "How long do you think we'll be there?"
Ricks: "Ten to 15 years, at least."
The Post ran excerpts today and Sunday that depict indiscriminate
arrests and abuse as a widespread phenomenon, clearly the result of
policies established at upper echelons.
And Human Rights Watch is out with a report entitled "No Blood, No
Foul," in which soldiers describe how detainees were routinely subjected
to severe beatings, painful stress positions, severe sleep deprivation,
and exposure to extreme cold and hot temperatures.
How high does responsibility for all this go? We still don't know. But
it may be time for the press to assume that it started at the top, and
look for evidence that it didn't -- rather than the other way around.
White House v. NBC
It's not quite open war in the White House press room, but sometimes it
comes close. On Friday morning, NBC Today's Show ambushed White House
press secretary Tony Snow. Just before Snow began a live interview from
the North Lawn, Matt Lauer showed a highly critical segment from David
Gregory .
"The Middle East in flames. From Iraq to Lebanon, the region has reached
a new boiling point. For the White House another crisis in a corner of
the world that has consumed a presidency. . . .
"[I]t wasn't supposed to be this way. The president's foreign policy was
designed do make the Middle East safer. It's not, and in Beirut the
anger is directed not just at Israel, but at the US. Crisis after crisis
has undermined the Bush doctrine. Preemptive war in Iraq to set an
example and perhaps open a new chapter of peace. . . .
"Iraq on the brink of civil war; a rising Iran defying the world over
nuclear weapons and flexing its muscles; and missile tests by North
Korea in violation of diplomatic demands. Even the president's
conservative allies say the world has become more unstable. 'Where,'
they now ask, 'is the president's nerve?' "
As his example, Gregory quoted Max Boot of the Council on Foreign
relations as saying: "We should be more aggressive in trying to make
clear to Iran and Syria that their aggressive actions will have
consequences."
The White House press office later that day responded to Gregory's
report with one of its " Setting The Record Straight " memos entitled
"President Bush's Foreign Policy Is Succeeding."
And as evidence that conservatives do stand behind Bush's policies, the
press office quoted the selfsame Max Boot , who in a Los Angeles Times
op-ed wrote: "Our best response is exactly what Bush has done so far --
reject premature calls for a cease-fire and let Israel finish the job."
Then on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Russert grilled White House Chief of
Staff Josh Bolten about the White House's apparent endorsement of Boot's
article, which also called on Israel to attack Syria. "Is that
administration policy?" Russert asked.
Bolten's reply: "That, that article is -- I mean, was sent around as a,
as a reflection of some of the conservative columnist support for
Israel. But, no. . . . "
Specter Gets Defensive
As I've written here and there , the so-called "retreat" by the White
House on domestic spying looks more like yet another example of the
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman being outfoxed by that wily vice
president.
The chairman himself, Arlen Specter , writes in a Washington Post op-ed:
"The negotiations with administration officials and the president
himself were fierce. . . .
"President Bush's record of seeking to expand Article II power has been
a hallmark of his administration. The president and vice president have
vociferously argued that the administration had the authority for the
program without any judicial review. Bush's personal commitment to
submit his program to [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] is
therefore a major breakthrough."
And, he writes: "If someone has a better idea for legislation that would
resolve the program's legality or can negotiate a better compromise with
the president, I will be glad to listen."
Maura Reynolds write in the Los Angeles Times that Specter told her on
Friday that Bush "overruled his staff" in agreeing to the deal.
Politics Watch
The Washington Post kicks off its Bellwether Project, examining the key
issues in the battle for Congress.
" The Elephant in the Room " is "How Big a Problem is President Bush for
the GOP?"
Nancy Benac reports for the Associated Press: "Vice President *****
Cheney on Friday pointed to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah as
fresh evidence of the ongoing battle against terrorism that underscores
the need to keep President Bush's Republican allies in control of Congress."
And me, I just got an e-mail from Bush (well, me and everyone else on
the Republican National Committee mailing list) stating: "Dan, nothing
threatens our hard-won reforms and economic prosperity more than a
Democrat victory this November."
But What Did the Other Guy Say?
The Associated Press reports: "President Bush called the latest American
winner of the Tour de France, Floyd Landis, on Sunday afternoon to
congratulate him and invite him to the White House.
" 'Must feel great,' Bush told the cyclist, who rode with an injured
hip. 'Everybody's proud of you. You showed amazing strength and courage.' "
But blogger Josh Marhsall notes that at a press conference after his
historic ride Thursday, Landis's cell phone started to ring.
"Reporter: Is that Bush?
"Landis (laughing): I doubt it. I'll hang up."
Open Microphone Redux
Al Kamen writes in The Washington Post: "A British television station
says it has identified the person responsible for that open microphone
catching a little unvarnished President Bush at the closing G-8 summit
lunch in St. Petersburg. The culprit? Shockingly enough, they finger
Russian President Vladimir Putin."
And a Los Angeles Times editorial notes that "when it came to outrage
over the president's language, nothing ever really hit the fan."
This Just In
James Rainey writes in the Los Angeles Times that despite the furor over
the New York Times stories about Bush's secret domestic surveillance
program, the White House is actually still talking to New York Times
reporters.
Doonesbury Watch
Garry Trudeau on Bush's decision-making process.
© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Fascist Bush uses unconstitutional signing statements |
26 Jul 2006 02:05:59 PM |
|
|
by Kevin Alfred Strom
....The May 18th meeting of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC for short) in
Washington, DC... AIPAC is the most influential lobby in Washington,
and is totally focused on maintaining and increasing American taxpayer
support for Israel, both financial and military, and in destroying all
critics of Israel or of Jewish supremacism...
When Bush ascended to the AIPAC podium, flanked by leading Jewish
supremacists on both sides, behind him was a huge new flag design,
probably 50 feet long, consisting of American stars and stripes
interspersed with huge Stars of David. Bush, interrupted by wild
applause and several standing ovations from the Zionist audience which
included Ariel Sharon, referred to the leading Jewish supremacists on
the platform by their first names:
"I'm honored to be here at AIPAC, thank you for such a warm welcome.
It's good to be with so many friends-friends of mine and friends of
Israel. ...I want to thank Amy for her leadership. I appreciate you
taking time to serve a cause that-in which you believe deeply. I want
to thank Bernice for her willingness to serve, as well. I've known
Howard for a long time. He's effective. I want to thank the AIPAC
board-AIPAC board members for their friendship and leadership. I'm
honored to be in the presence of my friend, the Ambassador from
Israel, Danny Ayalon. I appreciate you being here, Danny."
How cozy. The president went on in this vein for about forty minutes,
acting more like an Israeli cabinet minister than an American
president. He congratulated himself for his unwavering support for
Zionism, justified the horrible terror-war being waged on Israel's
behalf in Iraq, and engaged in some saber-rattling against other
Muslim states that don't want to have a government supervised by Jews.
Bush also repeated the catch-phrase that has a hidden meaning to
Jewish supremacists, the phrase I've spoken about before on American
Dissident Voices-"committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish
state," which is repeated almost word-for-word again and again by
Israel's sycophants and Capitol Hill puppets. and which means much
more than seems. [ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1282 ]
The words 'as a Jewish state' are crucial: they mean support for
Israel as a racial state for one people alone, something that the
Jewish power structure denies to every White nation-yet White
politicians must express their "commitment" to Israel. Bush stated:
"The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed,
to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." Identical to the
catch-phrase, with only the addition of the word 'vibrant.' Bush is
not committed to America as an American state -- in fact, he supports
amnesty for illegal invaders.
All that is to be expected from Bush, considering his dependence on
Jewish favor, Jewish money, and Jewish media for his election. But
what I found most chilling about Bush's groveling speech before his
masters was this section, in which he makes reference to a recent
meeting of the so-called Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE), which is working with American and European governments
to outlaw free speech by "monitoring" and outlawing criticism of Jews
[ http://www.natvan.com/pub/2003/053103.txt
http://www.natvan.com/pub/2003/062803.txt ]:
"The Jewish people have seen, over the years and over the centuries,
that hate prepares the way for violence. The refusal to expose and
confront intolerance can lead to crimes beyond imagining. So we have a
duty to expose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found. Some
of you attended a very important event in Berlin last month, the
International Conference on Anti-Semitism. You understand that
anti-Semitism is not a problem of the past; the hatred of Jews did not
die in a Berlin bunker. In its cruder forms, it can be found in some
Arab media, and this government will continue to call upon Arab
governments to end libels and incitements. Such hatred can also take
subtler forms. The demonization of Israel, the most extreme
anti-Zionist rhetoric can be a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism, and
contribute to an atmosphere of fear in which synagogues are
desecrated, people are slandered, folks are threatened. I will
continue to call upon our friends in Europe to renounce and fight any
sign of anti-Semitism in their midst."
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040518-1.html
]
You'll notice two things here: 1) Bush is conflating negative feelings
about Jews, and 'rhetoric,' with actual violent acts and a supposed
'atmosphere' that 'creates' them, thus setting the stage for the
legally-required 'monitoring' of all critics of Jewish power and the
criminalization of the free speech of these critics, and 2) the
redefinition of criticism of Israel or Zionism, making them into just
another form of so-called "anti-Semitism," so they, too, can be
'monitored' and eventually criminalized. Both of these are something
that Jewish pressure groups worldwide have been pushing hard for
recently, and Bush promised to give them exactly what they want.
Meanwhile, at yet another meeting, John Kerry, who is actually of
Jewish ancestry himself, tried to out-promise Bush with his
protestations of love for Zionism and hatred of any who would
criticize Jewish supremacism. At a meeting last month of the
crime-linked Jewish spying operation and pressure group, the
'Anti-Defamation League' (ADL) in Washington, Kerry said the
following:
"...what ADL stands for is what I would like to fight for. ...And
after last week's [OSCE] conference in Berlin, we celebrate 55
countries that came together who have pledged to intensify their
efforts to combat anti-Semitism and to spread tolerance. ...And we
still know that anti-Semitism, notwithstanding the meeting of 55
countries, has been growing, and demands global leadership in order to
stand up against it. ...Across the Atlantic we've seen a new wave of
anti-Semitism, masking as anti-Israel sentiment, and it's creeping its
way across Europe and the Middle East. ...The people of Israel should
also know that for the entire 20 years that I have been in the United
States Senate, I'm proud that my commitment to a secure Jewish state
has been unwavering; not even by one vote or one letter or one
resolution has it wavered. And as president, I can guarantee you that
that support and that effort for our ally, a vibrant democracy, will
continue. ...The security of Israel is paramount."
[ http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerryadl.html ]
Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot have more than one paramount value.
If a certain thing is your highest value, that means that all other
things are of lesser or no value. Kerry says "The security of Israel
is paramount." Not the security of the United States. Not the security
of our children's future. Not the security of Western civilization or
its founding race. None of these are paramount to Kerry, or for that
matter Bush or any of the bought politicians. The Jewish state alone
is paramount. (In one of those coincidences that is simply too funny
to have been made up, I note that Kerry's 'liaison with the Jewish
community' is a person named Jay Footlik.)
As for Ralph Nader, he himself, like Kerry, is not entirely White
(though he's not Jewish) and he cannot be expected to articulate the
interests of White Americans. He has approached Middle Eastern issues
with more objectivity than Kerry or Bush-he recently referred to Kerry
as "part of the Washington puppet show on the Israeli/Palestinian
matter"-and he would restrict some of the worst abuses of the
open-border maniacs for rational economic reasons...
[ http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerry.html ]
And what of that OSCE conference on 'anti-Semitism' to which both
Kerry and Bush referred in such glowing terms? Attended by
representatives of 55 nations, many of them dependent on US/Zionist
favor for their economic survival, it marked the agreement of those
governments to 'root out' all criticism of Jews, continue their
efforts to criminalize such criticism, and begin the most extensive
internal surveillance and spying operation ever known, to be directed
against their own citizens suspected of being aware of the issue of
Jewish supremacism.
According to the New Jersey Jewish News, at the conference "European
governments acknowledged that much of the current anti-Semitism
revival hides behind criticism of Israel. ...Several congressional
participants praised the work of the conference, but warned that the
meeting is only the first step in combating a problem that continues
to grow."
One of those US Congressmen attending the event was New Jersey's
Republican Representative Chris Smith, who said "When national leaders
fail to denounce anti-Semitic violence and slurs, the void is not only
demoralizing to the victims, but silence actually enables the
wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in particular conveys
approval - or at least acquiescence - and can contribute to a climate
of fear and a sense of vulnerability. ...we hope the results of this
conference will serve as a blueprint for serious and hopefully bold
action. Our words here in Berlin, however, must be repeated at home
with frequency, passion, and tenacity and matched - and even exceeded
- by deeds."
Laszlo Kovacs, the foreign minister of Hungary, told the OSCE meeting
"There can be no tolerance of extremist hate speech. We will not
tolerate it in parliament, in meetings, on the streets, squares or
football stadiums." By "extremist hate speech" they now mean criticism
of Israel, Zionism, or Jewish power. They do not mean and will not
punish Jewish supremacists when they declare their hatred of White
people or others, nor will they punish the Jewish funding and
promotion of policies which are leading directly to genocide of the
European race.
Another attendee was Democratic Congressman from Maryland Ben Cardin,
who declared "We ended up with a document that acknowledges the
importance of national leadership in fighting anti-Semitism, and which
commits nations not just to gather information about the problem but
to take action based on that."
The article continues: "As a result, OSCE members will share
information on the spread of anti-Semitism and 'best practices' for
combating it. Member nations agreed to invest in educational and law
enforcement programs aimed at reducing hate crimes and to appoint a
roving OSCE envoy to help members 'develop specific strategies.'"
Jewish spokesman Mark Levin said of the OSCE meeting "The bottom line
is that members states of the OSCE are now committed to monitoring and
hopefully implementing programs to counter increasing
anti-Semitism..." Levin also said that America must also monitor and
'combat' critics of Jewish power: "It was clear we have a lot to look
at in our own backyard, including using education, law enforcement,
and the Internet to combat new forms of hatred." With every questioner
of Jewish policy now put in the 'anti-Semite' category if Jewish
groups so declare, Levin and Foxman are going to be very very busy in
the near future.
[ http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/50604/wldadl.html ]
[ http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040523124619.zfxkfwap ]
They may have to 'monitor' the halls of Congress. In the U.S.
Senate, Senator Ernest Hollings is about to retire-and from
the secure position of never having to worry about reelection
again, Mr. Hollings has decided to come clean, at least
partially, on the nature of Jewish power in Washington. (By the
way, Hollings' designated successor has been chosen by the
Democratic Party: Inez Tenenbaum, the Democratic state education
superintendent. No more worries about South Carolina Senators
spilling the beans for a while, anyway. [
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printLondon20040525.shtml
] )
Hollings' remarks included the following: "They [the Israeli military]
are coming in there [Palestinian refugee camps] with U.S. equipment,
U.S. gun helicopters, U.S. tanks that are bulldozing. That is our
policy. That is the reason for 9/11. ...I think, frankly, we have
caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of. ...I can tell you no
President takes office-I don't care whether it is a Republican or a
Democrat-that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the
policy is... I don't apologize for this column. I want them to
apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting
by with it. ...Now we have killed almost 800, maimed for life
thousands of others. Are we going to just continue on?"
[ http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html
]
Good question, Senator Hollings. My question is: Why did it take you
dozens of years to tell us the truth about Jewish domination of
Washington? Other establishment figures have, perhaps reluctantly and
hesitantly, revealed the truth about who has led us into the war:
Middle East expert General Anthony Zinni has now stated that the
purpose of the war was Israel's security, and that Jewish
neocons-naming Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Richard
Perle, and Elliot Abrams-were the ones pushing for war from the
beginning.
[ http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13549 ]
In parallel with the OSCE efforts in Europe, Jewish efforts to
suppress criticism are right now on track to be made into law in the
US Congress: H.R.4230 is a bill to "To authorize the establishment
within the Department of State of an Office to Monitor and Combat
Anti-Semitism, to require inclusion in annual Department of State
reports of information concerning acts of anti-Semitism around the
world, and for other purposes."
The bill states that "It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) the
United States should continue to vigorously support efforts to combat
anti-Semitism worldwide through bilateral relationships and
interaction with international organizations such as the Organization
of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); (2) the United States
delegation to the OSCE conference in Berlin should advocate for the
appointment of a High Commissioner on anti-Semitism; (3) the President
should direct the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to
introduce in the most appropriate forum in the United Nations a
measure condemning anti-Semitism; (4) the Secretary of State should
establish a permanent office in the Department of State to monitor and
combat anti-Semitism; and (5) the Department of State should
thoroughly document acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement
that occur around the world."
[ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR04230:@@@P ]
It does indeed seem that there are meetings, meetings everywhere -- in
Berlin, in Washington, in the halls of Congress itself. For the most
part, these are meetings of liars and faceless bureaucrats eager to
accept Jewish money and keep their jobs by doing what they are told.
Meanwhile, we're having some meetings of our own. Last month, National
Alliance members participated in the Institute for Historical Review
revisionist conference in Sacramento, which we helped rescue from
cowardice and Jewish censorship efforts. Just one week earlier, we
held the largest-ever National Alliance Leadership Conference in the
newly-constructed William Pierce Memorial Hall in the beautiful
mountains of West Virginia. And just a few days ago, the New Orleans
European-American Conference gathered together Alliance members and
supporters, members of other groups, and individual activists from
around the world to meet in cooperation in setting lofty goals,
putting in place a 'zero tolerance' policy on violence or lawlessness
often instigated by provocateurs, and distancing ourselves from
irresponsible elements by setting a high moral tone in our efforts to
secure a future for White children. The ideas in the New Orleans
Protocol, as it is called, are those that the National Alliance has
been promoting for years. The New Orleans Protocol will have historic
significance as we advance toward our vision: a nation for White
people, where the government is responsible to us alone, where our
interests-and not the interests of a foreign nation like Israel-come
first.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: NEOCONSERVATIVE Bush & Neoconservative Manifesto by Kalki Gaur |
27 Jul 2006 07:50:46 PM |
|
|
(1) (1) Page 1, Chapter 1. 1(1) Abstract: Global political parties
based on the common principles of democracy,
Democracy is a cruel joke when the Jews control the media.
"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher, Der Stürmer, #34/1939.
"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in 1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little more of the gist of his message. I quote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country.
"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .
"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in
the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our
ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns
of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the
world. . .
"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The
voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is
made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those
persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .
"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of
the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life." -
end of quote -
I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of
others always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It
is not for nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as
they were in the time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose
Bernays' book to quote is that it provides a more concise and clear
summary, in a few quotable paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in
modern life than most other
books on the subject.
If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. Although it is available in larger libraries, it's long
been out of print, and all it does is state the obvious: namely, that
the whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few
people have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes
and opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes
the disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of
life, but it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment
the thinking of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only
lead us to greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the
question of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.
If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater
honesty than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most
obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:
"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --
To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that
the policies guiding our nation should be decided by counting the
votes of every featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's
like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.
This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.
And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that
we have a greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up
our own minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we
still have some degree of individual freedom in the United States
today because more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far
more aristocratic than democratic in the modern sense of the word were
willing to go to war against their legitimate government in order to
secure that freedom for us, and people with a truly democratic
temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.
Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing in the myth of democracy is an important element in
maintaining control over the thinking and behavior of the public. It
is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read
in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious
and self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're
still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books. It is
distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: NEOCONSERVATIVE Bush & Neoconservative Manifesto by Kalki Gaur |
27 Jul 2006 07:51:52 PM |
|
|
Manifesto of Neo-Conservatism
Author: Kalki Gaur, "Manifesto of Neo-Conservatism" (2006, $30). ©
Copyrights 2006, Email: Dilomatkalkigaur@yahoo.com; Weblog:
//360.yahoo.com/NeoconservativeManifesto/
(1) (1) Page 1, Chapter 1. 1(1) Abstract: Global political parties
based on the common principles of democracy, capitalism,
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
