Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle

[eg420ne]

:thumbsup: :stoned:
February 17, 2006
Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle
Our leader über alles
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 über 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 Phoenixsays 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.

For years, the Republican Federalist Society has been agitating for concentrating more power in the executive. The members will say that they do not favor a dictator, just a check on the "imperial Congress" and "imperial judiciary." But they have not spelled out how the president can be higher than law and still be accountable, or, if he is only to be higher than some laws, but not other laws, and only in some circumstances, but not all circumstances, who draws the line through the law and defines the circumstances.

On Feb. 13, the American Bar Association passed a resolution belatedly asking President Bush to stop violating the law. "We cannot allow the U.S. Constitution and our rights to become a victim of terrorism," said bar association president Michael Grecco.

The siren call of "national security" is all the cover Bush needs to have the FISA law repealed, thus legally gaining the power to spy however he chooses, the protection of political opponents be damned. However, Bush and his Federalist Society Justice Department are not interested in having the law repealed. Their purpose has nothing to do with national security. The point on which the regime is insisting is that there are circumstances (undefined) in which the president does not have to obey laws. What those circumstances and laws are is for the regime to decide.

The Bush regime is asserting the Fuhrer Principle, and Americans are buying it, even as Bush declares that America is at war in order to bring democracy to the Middle East.

eg420ne Reviewed by eg420ne on 02-18-2006. Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle :thumbsup: :stoned: February 17, 2006 Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle Our leader über alles 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 Rating: 5

[Euphoric]

Conservatives should create their own nation because it is not what America was meant to be

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

what Euphoric said.


actually, each seperate state should be it's own nation within a nation, as well as each county within the state be free, as well as each individual city.


why the fucking hell isnt it like that...? i may never know...

[clock]

what Euphoric said.


actually, each seperate state should be it's own nation within a nation, as well as each county within the state be free, as well as each individual city.


why the fucking hell isnt it like that...? i may never know...

That is called a city-state right? I doubt this nation will last long if it keeps this path but maybe that's what this land needs who knows

[pisshead]

Conservatives should create their own nation because it is not what America was meant to be

ditto for the 'democrats' or 'liberals' who basically want the same thing as the neo-cons, they just ask for it in different ways...

we need to get back the constitutional republic we were founded as.

a conservative should follow the constitution...

but the country wasn't founded on fake left versus right bullshit, it was founded on freedom versus slavery, the real political spectrum.

[eg420ne]

Heres a bump for myth and amsterdam

[Awill3449]

[QUOTE=pisshead]ditto for the 'democrats' or 'liberals' who basically want the same thing as the neo-cons, they just ask for it in different ways...

we need to get back the constitutional republic we were founded as.

a conservative should follow the constitution...

but the country wasn't founded on fake left versus right bullshit, it was founded on freedom versus slavery, the real political spectrum.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? The pilgrims who left Britain were never slaves. Americans had slaves for almost 100 years after it was founded.

America was founded as a place were different voices could be heard. Disagreement is healthy; it is patriotic. I agree..everyone constitution. The three branches of government must be equal. George Bush cannot break the law. But we need this debate "bullshit" because if it works correctly, people will compromise. Don't miss the point. Calling the system stupid just undermines it.

[didinhale]

freedom vs. slavery (economic slavery)(freedom from religion) (freedom from exploitation)
the war on drugs is telling me I don't have sovereignty over my own body.
obviously some people don't want us to be free. we might realize that we all have a right to a place on this planet,