Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Feb 21, 2006.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    by Paul Craig Roberts

    Last week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism. A former Justice Department official named Viet Dinh got a standing ovation when he told the CPAC audience that the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden.

    Former Republican congressman Bob Barr, who led the House impeachment of President Bill Clinton, reminded the CPAC audience that our first loyalty is to the U.S. Constitution, not to a leader. The question, Barr said, is not one of disloyalty to Bush, but whether America "will remain a nation subject to, and governed by, the rule of law or the whim of men."

    The CPAC audience answered that they preferred to be governed by Bush. According to Dana Milbank, a member of the CPAC audience named Richard Sorcinelli loudly booed Barr, declaring: "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say Bush is off course trying to defend the United States." A woman in the audience told Barr that the Constitution placed Bush above the law and above non-elected federal judges.

    These statements gallop beyond the merely partisan. They express the sentiments of brownshirtism. Our leader ├╝ber alles.

    Only a few years ago this same group saw Barr as a conservative hero for obtaining Clinton's impeachment in the House. Obviously, CPAC's praise for Barr did not derive from Barr's stand on conservative principle that a president must be held accountable if he violates the law. In Clinton's case, Barr's principles did not conflict with the blind emotions of the politically partisan conservatives demanding Clinton's impeachment.

    In opposing Bush's illegal behavior, Barr is simply being consistent. But this time, Barr's principles are at odds with the emotions of the politically partisan CPAC audience. Rushing to the defense of Bush, the CPAC audience endorsed Viet Dinh's Fuhrer Principle over the rule of law.

    Why do the media and the public allow partisan political hacks, like Viet Dinh, to define Bush's illegal actions as a national security issue? The purpose of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is to protect national security. FISA creates a secret court to which the president can apply for a warrant even after he has initiated spying. Complying with the law in no way handicaps spying for national security purposes. The only spying handicapped by the warrant requirement is spying for illegitimate purposes, such as spying on political opponents.

    There are only two reasons for Bush to refuse to obey the law. One is that he is guilty of illegitimate spying for which no warrant would be issued by the FISA court. The other is that he is using "national security" to create unconstitutional powers for the executive.

    Civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate writing in the Boston Phoenix says that Bush's grab for "sweeping, unchecked power in direct violation of a statute would open a Pandora's box of imperial possibilities." In short, it makes the president a dictator.

    SOURCE
     
  2. freedom's cause

    freedom's cause
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    the ACLU is our enemy we should be protesting in front of their offices nationwide
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only "sweeping, unchecked power" that the ACLU opposes is that wielded by people who oppose what they want to force on society.

    That said, I disagree in whole that any President of any party at any time should be above the law. I don't agree that Bush has violated the law. However, he must remain subject to the rule of law.

    Funny that the ACLU folks weren't howling for Clinton to be removed from office after blatantly committing perjury. Just demonstrates their hypocrisy I suppose.
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Perjury was the least of the crimes Bill Clinton commited that's why it was the biggest issue.

    When did Bob Barr join the ACLU, btw, when he said our first loyalty is to the constitution and not a leader?

    Exactly which law is it that the POTUS is supposed to be subject to anyway, and is the rule of this law different for a democrat than a republican?

    [ February 21, 2006, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    There's a third reason for the so called "illegitimate spying" that Roberts leaves out entirely. That being that it is not "illegitimate" at all, but completely authorized by the Constitution and by statute.
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said he had.

    Exactly which law is it that the POTUS is supposed to be subject to anyway, and is the rule of this law different for a democrat than a republican? </font>[/QUOTE]All of them... and no.

    There is now a question of law about the surveillance. A disagreement amongst experts that at the academic level isn't necessarily partisan.

    This is a time when legislation is needed to clarify these powers and limit their exercise.

    The logic that "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is wholly illegitimate.

    This issue does need to be addressed. It is not evidence that Bush or anyone violated anyone's constitutional rights by monitoring the domestic phone calls of people having direct links to terrorists or terror suspects.

    The hand wringing is totally unnecessary.

    There is a serious problem however that isn't even being addressed. That is the politicalization of the CIA. We are now seeing reports of people who tried to supply evidence concerning Soviet assistance to Saddam on WMD's who were systematically suppressed and discredited. We are seeing that the CIA may have sat on taped evidence of WMD's. We know for a fact that Plame and Wilson used their positions to directly do political damage to Bush based on their partisan agendas.

    It seems that Slick Willie and cohorts were up to no good at the CIA for 8 years.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Got links Scott?

    Apparently I've been to busy figuring out that the Bushies and Slick Willy have been acting in unison to further their globalist benefactors policies than keeping score cards on so called partisan issues?

    8 years doesn't seem like much considering the Bush Harriman family has been firmly entrenched in the CIA from it's OSS days.
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
     
  10. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    poncho,

    This article was already posted by KenH in a different thread. In fact, you've got a post on that thread. We've seen this already. Are you playing the Ken game now, i.e., the more threads you post on the same topic the more likely you are to get an answer?
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes and no. When the Constitution or the execution of law under the Constitution is in question then the legislature has both the right and responsibility to create governing statutes.

    BTW, the Constitution doesn't specifically grant this power to the executive branch. However, an Amendment is needed to cover the various forms of modern surveillance and communications that could have never been anticipated by the founders.
     
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    One article from Newsmax? Can you corroborate this evidence with other sources?

    We've seen how easily voice and video morphing can be done and that the technology has existed for some time also.

    Seems like the emergence of this evidence along with Bush's allegations that his domestic spying program saved the Liberty tower formerly known as the Library tower from certain destruction comes at the precise moment he is being questioned about Saddam's WMDs and his domestic spying program.

    How do we know this to be fact? Links?
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No FTR, Apparently I am suffering from information overload again. Trying to keep track of all this administration's propaganda, misdirection tactics and clumsy attempts at coverups must have made me dizzy again. Sorry. Besides, I figure that I would just be fooling myself to look for real answers from this current crop of sustainable globalists. [​IMG]
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where have you been sleeping? "at the precise moment"? Bush has been being raked over the coals for years about WMD's... surely you remember "Bush lied and people died", right? The mantra has been "Bush lied about WMD's since before the election... I wouldn't say this evidence is particularly timely at all... there is very little political benefit right now.

    In spite of what liberals would like to believe, there is no ground swell of support for impeachment over the surveillance. Even if there were, the best they could hope for is a referral of charges. It is debatable among the best legal minds as to whether any laws were broken. It further appears that Bush had assent from both other branches.

    How do we know this to be fact? Links? </font>[/QUOTE]Because they gave interpretations of information that specifically in accord with the Kerry campaign.

    You can look up Wilson's editorial yourself and note the timing. Both of them were involved in the Kerry campaign.
     
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I haven't been sleeping at all Scott. Like I said I have been busy concentrating on how the Bush/Clinton/Bush regimes have been working together to further their globalist benefactor's agenda of world government through the auspices of the United Nations, WEFORUM and public private partnerships or in laymans terms pushing the elites recycled communist revolution on the masses.

    I just figure that knowing how their combined efforts to ruin our republic actually works is more important than trying to keep a score card on all the petty partisan politics and corrupt politicos inside the false left vs right paradigm.

    Excuuuuuuuse me for putting loyalty to my country ahead of loyalty to a politcal party. :rolleyes:

    [ February 21, 2006, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Yes and no. When the Constitution or the execution of law under the Constitution is in question then the legislature has both the right and responsibility to create governing statutes.

    </font>[/QUOTE]I'll go for that... if you can point me to the section of the Constitution that outlines that "right and responsibility" concerning powers granted to the Executive Branch.
     
  17. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    If, as this article claims, "Saddam had amassed 100 million tons of munitions - roughly 60 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal" WHY DIDN'T HE FIGHT IT OUT TO THE DEATH WITH US? Why did he allow that much of an arsenal to be removed from his use? From this guy's perspective, Russia might have joined him.
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    "IF" this info is credible then he probably miscalculated. My guess would be that he thought that if he could hide the weapons then let the inspectors back in to "prove" he didn't have them that the west would at least be divided enough to prevent an invasion. The west was divided (although one would have to question the sincerity of German, French, and Russian protests since they were engaging Iraq in ways contrary to UN mandates). Even with the division, our cowboy president surprised Saddam by not asking permission from liberal gov'ts and political crooks around the world before pulling the trigger.
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle

    I haven't seen this much dung since I used to slop the hogs! :D :D :D :D :D
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I certainly hope everyone is aware that the OP story & link is a opinion/commentary piece off of a crackpot website. It seems some folks are commenting on it as though it were objective news or something.
     

Share This Page

Loading...