If this is true....how sad

[urbsdad6]

Original article and links at:


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml


Doc Urb



Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53



Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

?I don?t give a goddamn,? Bush retorted. ?I?m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.?

?Mr. President,? one aide in the meeting said. ?There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.?

?Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,? Bush screamed back. ?It?s just a goddamned piece of paper!?

I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that ?goddamned piece of paper? used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the ?Constitution is an outdated document.?

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn?t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn?t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine ? in the end ? if something is legal or right.

Every federal official ? including the President ? who takes an oath of office swears to ?uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a ?living document.?

?"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have?a 'living document,?? Scalia says. ?We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.?

As a judge, Scalia says, ?I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.?

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a ?union between a man and woman.? Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

?We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,? Scalia warns. ?Don't think that it's a one-way street.?

And don?t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just ?a goddamned piece of paper.?


? Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

[catman]

What scares me is that people actually believe this nonsense!

Trav

[SuperScout]

Ovbiously, urbswhatever is just trying to pick a fight, his usual wont in life. If he had ever read something worthwhile, he would have known that GWB never uses God's name in vain, is certainly much more knowledgable about the US Constitution, and that Alberto Gonzales is a constitutional expert, not given to showing such contempt as the article wrote.

What's just as scary is that people who have too much time on their hands that go and find this drivel.

[reconeil]

"If this is true...",...YEAH SURE!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like old: "Slick Willy" "Never had sex with THOSE Women", wasn't a Vietnam War Protestor ON FOREIGN SOIL, O.J. never harmed a fly...and I'm honestly The Tooth Fairy.

Still, you jus-gotsta-be-amazed at how many supposedly(?) sane Americans are and have been taken-in by such NONSENSES and/or flat-out purposeful deceits (Tooth Fairy bit excluded),...done mostly for undermining America, "Recapturing The White House" and/or just staying out of jail.

Neil

[rotorwash]

Check out capitalblues sources for this one. Three White House aides who refused to be identified. Or was it five? Or one? Maybe it was the laundry lady. Or the dog. If you ain't got names, you ain't got sources, chump. And good ol' Doug calls himself a reporter.

I have unidentified sources that tell me that someone on this site scalds their cat. No. Wait, it was just this lousy pizza creating hallucinations. Wish it were true, I hate cats.

[urbsdad6]

As is often the case with this type of article the actual meat of the story is lost in the rampage to criminalize onesidedly a statement that is of course quite inflammatory to those that side with the offical stories that are misinformed, disinformed, mispresented to the country of sheople that believe everything they hear and read in the mainstream media. What we need to look at is the incredible criminality and highway robbery by which the Constitution and Bill of Rights is being hijacked from the American people by the Government. Example, just look at all the pardons Slick Willy made. All of them drug dealers, war mongers, thieves, embezzlers and now he is (coming out of the closet) playing buddy - buddy with the Bush family. What does that say about the Bushes that have had criminal connections to the Nazis???? Our current Government is like a piece of cloth...two sides and maybe different colors but still just one piece of cloth. In my eyes a one party system is a dictatorship. But that's my opinion.


Doc Urb


Article located at:

http://www.rense.com/general69/profane.htm


President Bush Is Well-Known For Being Extremely Profane - But That Isn't The Story

by Doug Thompson
Capital Hill Blue
12-14-5

Every time we publish a major story that puts some elected official in a bad light we get a chorus of boos from detractors who claim everything we publish is garbage and/or just a figment of an overactive imagination.

From 1994 until 2001, when Bill Clinton led the follies at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the cackle of disapproval came from hardcore Democrats who couldn't believe we would dare question the actions of their beloved President.

Since 2001, the rabid right-wing packed the cheap seats and showered us with catcalls because we uncovered the many misdeeds of George W. Bush and the questionable Republican leadership of Congress.

Oh, we still get raspberries from the lefties. They remember what we wrote about Clinton and we still go after Democrats who screw up. To partisans, anyone who doesn't write from a politically-biased point of view is automatically suspect.

Our latest story on President Bush's disrespectful comments on the Constitution ("it's just a goddamned piece of paper") brought the usual flurry of emails from readers who wanted to let us know that (insert name of web site here) is (pick one) "questioning your integrity/calling you a clown/saying your web site is a joke/etc."

Often, when we check into who's calling us what we find the questions come from an anonymous poster on a bulletin board or a partisan blogger who publishes under a nom de plume. They question both our use of anonymous sources and the credibility of those sources.

There is a laughable irony that comes from some keyboard commando who hides behind an anonymous "handle" criticizing us for publishing a story that uses anonymous sources.

The first journalism award I won, a Feature Writing First Place from The Virginia Press Association in 1967, came from a story about an anonymous teenager in Roanoke who obtained an abortion that was illegal at the time. I've won more than 30 journalism awards over the last 38 years and about half of them for stories that depended heavily on anonymous sources.

In a political system where retaliation rules, you can't expose corruption or misdeeds by depending entirely on those willing to allow use of their names. Without anonymous sources, the truth about Watergate would never have emerged. The Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting most often goes to a newspaper story or series of stories that depends heavily on use of anonymous sources.

We put our reputation on the line every time we publish a story that depends on information from anonymous sources. Sometimes we get burned and when we do we admit it publicly, take our well-deserved lumps, and move on.

In 2003, we published reports that intelligence professionals had raised doubts about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and questioned claims of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Our detractors claimed we made the whole thing up. Two years later, we were proven right.

Last year, when we published reports on the President's increasing temper tantrums, the doubters again claimed the reports were fantasy. Yet mainstream media outlets reported the same thing this year. We were rightand we got it first.

We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.

That doesn't mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We've published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we've had to retract two of them. That's a record I'm willing to stand on.

So, the next time somebody calls Capitol Hill Blue a "garbage site" or claims I'm a clown, ask them for their qualifications and background. Did they get their information from credible sources or some anonymous poster on a partisan bulletin board or a blogger with a political ax to grind?

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I'm an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one.

When I'm wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven't had to do that very often.

When I'm right I don't give a damn who doesn't like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: "If you piss off both sides you're doing your job."

That's good enough for me.

______

Comment
InfoWars.com
12-13-5

After Capital Hill Blue released the story about Bush's outburst referring to the U.S. Constitution as a "G-dd-amned piece of paper," there has been an outpouring of demands for the journal to reveal its sources so they can ostensibly be grilled by the neo-con worshippers for letting slip how much Bush is losing it.

The truth is that this demand for sources is a complete smokescreen and spin to try to discredit an alternative news site which on every occaision has been proven right about its initial reports. Each story CHB has published about Bush's cursing, tantrums and violent outburts which came from anonymous sources have been later confirmed by mainstream news outlets such as the New York Daily News.

The supplemental spin on the story is to redirect the outrage away from the context of Bush's statement to the President's language itself. The controversy becomes his use of an expletive rather than the fact that he is stomping on the greatest symbol of our republic. Everyone is clinging to the curse words but the really damaging element of Bush's tantrum is that it reveals he is aware that he is destroying everything printed on that "piece of paper."

The neo-cons must not have their way and spin this seven ways to Sunday. We must remind people that what's at stake here is not whether or not we have a profane president (although we know we do) but that we have an immature manchild at the figurative helm of the nation who is knowingly crushing our God-given rights - to enhance his power (and the power of his masters).

[urbsdad6]

Article at:

http://infowars.net/articles/decembe...205neocons.htm


It?s About A Lot More Than A "Goddamned Piece of Paper"
Bush Remark Reiterates Arrogant Globalist/Neocon "Crazies" Insane Lust For New World Order Prevalence And Power

Steve Watson | December 12 2005

?Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act,? writes Doug Thompson for Capitol Hill Blue. ?GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.? Thompson reports the following exchange:

?I don?t give a goddamn,? Bush retorted. ?I?m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.?

?Mr. President,? one aide in the meeting said. ?There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.?

?Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,? Bush screamed back. ?It?s just a goddamned piece of paper!?

?I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?? Thompson comments

This is just the latest remark in a long history of arrogant Neocon speak to highlight the fact that they have no respect for America or its population. The fact that Bush's remarks were so off the cuff yet viciously delivered reminds us of how and why the Neoconservative clan, who were just getting a foothold during the first year of the Regan administration, through their actions and incessant saber-rattling garnered the nickname 'the crazies' by more moderate policy makers under the first Bush presidency. Colin Powell, an establishment underling through and through, would go one further, calling them "fucking crazies" during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

For the President of the United States to verbally wipe the floor with the Constitution and curse it in the way Bush has and it go virtually unreported serves as an indication of the threat America is facing today from an Elite power structure that cares nothing for the country it has usurped and is hell bent on centralizing power globally and undermining the principles America was founded on.

The US is a Constitutional Republic, yet to Bush's handlers, the globalist Neocons, that is not part of the agenda. In an entirely Orwellian fashion they have attempted to change the meaning of "Democracy" and adopt it as a form of governance to fit their agenda. The word democracy originates from three Greek words meaning "the people", "to rule," and the suffix ?a; the term therefore means "rule by the people" by which is meant rule by the majority.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual or "Tyranny of the majority". For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure.

So the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is a Republic.

The Neocons have adopted the word Democracy and attached their world view to it. This as we have previously exposed is a Straussian world view - after Leo Strauss, who arrived in the US in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973.



Strauss was a German Jewish political philosopher whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to representative democratic government. Strauss, as revealed in a major New Yorker article by legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, believed the world to be a place where "isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad", and where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to "protect" their countries.

Shadia Drury, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, commented that Hersh was correct on the second point but wrong on the first, insisting that "Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat." She goes on to comment that "Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them."


Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, "some are fit to lead, and others to be led", according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".

We have previously exposed how many major players in the Bush Administration and leading Neoconservative think tanks are followers of Strauss. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Weekly Standard chief editor William Kristol, His father Irving, and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Also on the books of PNAC, prior to the 2000 election were Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as well as former defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Other luminaries included Jon Bolton, now Ambassador to the UN and Scooter Libby, soon to be in Prison.



Also present was the darling of many Western academic institutions Francis Fukuyama who's "End of History" antics had gained him loving praise from the Straussian Neocons and got him into the State Department. Fukuyama says that we have reached ?the end point of mankind?s ideological evolution" and believes in "the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." This is perfect for the Neocon Globalists because it means they can justify "protecting" this "perfect" end point of mankind's evolution and it's global spread at ANY cost. Fukuyama was a staple of my International Relations MA 2 years ago and is so now in institutions all over the Western world.


The PNAC way of thinking has been implemented almost to the book since 9/11. Their flagship document, Rebuilding America's Defenses noted that in order to go ahead with their strategy their would have to be some kind of pivotal event that would unite the American people behind the Government. This was referred to as "a new Pearl Harbor" and came to pass on September 11 2001.

Leo Strauss was also a strong believer in the "Realism" form of International Relations made prominent by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought that human nature was intrinsically aggressive and could be restrained only through a State formed via a powerful military industrial complex . "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people."

"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. This is what Henry Kissinger was referring to in that often quoted statement he made about creating external future threats in order to guard the world order he wishes to see become more prevalent and powerful, the system we often refer to as the "New World Order". Thus for the Neocons, when the Soviet Empire weakened and a Unipolar world order was emerging, a new threat had to be there lurking to allow them to further their Straussian vision.

"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time [to survive]," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy", she added.

The BBC earlier this year aired a series of documentaries that went some way to explaining the rise of the Neocon movement out of Straussian Philosophy. It was entitled the Power of Nightmares and concluded that the War On Terror is a complete fraud and Al Qaeda is a largely manufactured threat as part of the agenda to scare people into accepting the Neocon vision of the New World Order. You can watch all three parts by clicking here

This is how "crazy" the Neoconservative view is. It is a deeply pessimistic world view and they are constantly trying to make it a reality. They actually really believe that life on this planet is simply about death, destruction and gaining total Global Power over any other way of existence. In the early years of the Regan Administration, before the term Neocon was even coined these people were emerging. Witness Regan Pentagon adviser and former State Department and National Security Council man Michael Ledeen, who is quoted as saying : "Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal."



In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."

All you have to do to predict where things are headed next is read the documents and policy reports that they put out. You don't even have to read into them if you don't want to. For example Michael Ledeen's last book was entitled Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism.

These people are indeed "fucking crazy". They can see no other future for this planet than continual total complete and unequivocal war and destruction in the name of "security" for their own twisted beliefs and way of existence. The remarkable thing is that they think they are the good guys and everyone else is evil.

"We're going to get criticized for being an imperial power anyway, so you might as well make sure that the good guys win." - Bill Kristol.



Now whether there are two warring factions of the New World Order in the 21st Century is something to be considered. Many believe that the Anglo-American Neocon Globalist vision differs from the older European vision for a new world order which is one of more incremental steps and an evolving globe of Nations under the control of a world government. This is sometimes referred to rather loosely in many cases as Neo-Liberalism.

In any case both visions are thinking beyond America or even sovereign state systems. They simply have to work within state systems to begin with because that is the way the world has evolved. Both visions overlap in various places and yes they do have their spats, but the overlords, the higher uppers, the Global Mafia as it were, the elite bankers and the policy foundations, those who finance the power structures, do so with ultimately the same goal in mind, they simply sometimes argue over how to get it done.

This becomes even more evident when you research deeper into the roots of Neoconservatives like Irving Kristol and James Burnham who were both strong admirers of Leon Trotsky. The Internationalist movement under Trotsky is often thought to be at the opposite end of the political scale to Neoconservativism, but when you expose the left/right political scale as a falsity, a cover for a higher elite level of globalism, the walls come crumbling down.

The Trotsky / Neocon links are further exposed in a 2003 National Post article entitled Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House. There is no doubt that the links exist, and furthermore they highlight the false left right paradigm by showing that so called Trotskyites can just as easily switch to Neoconservativism should the moment in world politics be right. They will use whichever end of the scale they believe is more likely to help them advance their quest for power.


As quoted in the afore mentioned article, Researcher Christopher Phelps rightly points out, that the circuitous route from Trotsky to Bush is "more a matter of rupture and abandonment of the left than continuity."

Of course, the rise of the Neocon cabal and the trashing of the constitution has not come without overarching help along the way from a gigantic propaganda machine. There has arisen a faction of media Neocons who are now also knowingly or unknowingly following the Straussian philosophical vision.



The Murdoch empire is a nice little Goebbels factory that attempts to churn out the same rhetoric as the Neocons until the general public actually believe it to be reality. Fox "News" is not actually news, it is Opinion on the world. This New York Times Article hits the nail on the head when writer Ron Suskind relates an encounter he had with a senior Bush aide in 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Creating false realities that fit the power structure's preconceived agenda is completely Straussian. The bad news for us is it's also completely Orwellian. In Nineteen Eighty Four George Orwell warned us of where this would lead if we allowed it to happen - and we know it's not pretty.

As Bush has been told (and has repeated) "You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda" In other words, if you throw enough BS, some of it is going to stick, and that's what Mr Murdooch's job is.

Of course there are also the Murdoch underlings and wannabe's who are the useful Neocon mouthpieces. Limbaugh, Hannity and O'reilly like to tell people to shut up and accept that torture is no big deal and war based on lies is acceptable if it is for the good of America.

Bill Kristol gets to go on Fox and tell us what's really going on everyday, whilst Ann Coulter likes to call For North Korea To Be "Nuked For Fun,".

And then you have Clear Channel who own the voting machines and put up giant Billboards telling us that George W Bush is "OUR LEADER".



But after all, what's the big deal about Bush trashing the Constitution? Fox News didn't report it, that means it didn't happen, doesn't it?

Besides, I thought that if you defend the Constitution, you were now considered a terrorist? That's what this FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force brochure says anyway. Defenders of the US Constitution and the common law from which it grew are being classified on the same level as Nazis and the KKK.

Therefore George Bush was right to say ?It?s just a goddamned piece of paper!?, otherwise he's a terrorist

[catman]

Find a hobby, spring will be here before you know it.

Trav

[Gimpy]

Urbsdad6, I'm trying my best to reduce my 'involvement' in discussions about most things 'political'...........It really ain't all that good for ones 'blood pressure', ya know what I mean?

But, when I see something like this that I think deserves a round of 'kudos'.............I'll probably come around for nothing more other than to say.....................thank you!

[reconeil]

There you go,...regarding your: "Scares me that people actually believe this nonsense". The previous response certainly bares your concern out.

Scarier still Trav,...is that so many Fellow Americans incessantly and daily non-stop keep similarly propagating such undermining and quite enemy helpful and encouraging: "Nonsense",...and as if; "Gospel" just like Gimpy and/or the previous responder just did.
See such all the time on TV.

Regardless, someone should explain to the myopic or single-minded DNC or Democrat hierarchy and their staunch or brainwashed believers, in that murderous Islamic terrorists don't distinguish between political parties. All American Infidels are fair game,...and even Democrat or ACLU type infidels.

Plus, avowed murdering American Infidels from birth Terrorists, are ACTUALLY The Enemy. Not The Democrats' political opposition or rivals and/or The unarguably pro-America & American Troops Republicans/Conservatives. Undermining such leaders during wartime is obscene,...if not treasonable?

Also, that so many Dems daily propagate differently and try deceiving Americans into joining their basically foreigners (above all others) favoring camp,...can't change the aforementioned realities. Realities will alway be realities, just like political bull will always be just plain old political bull

However, Dems perperpetually try to confuse realities with political bull.
That's only way such can ever succeed. Certainly not truthfully.

But, fortunately Democrats: "Can't Fool All The People All The Time". Only the most devout, staunchest or most brainwashed of duped Dem followers always believe their incessant opposition underminings. Such is TRULY fortunate for America, and especially during wartime.

Neil