This is a sobering article written by a long term Republican who was a Reagan cabinet member. It shows how quickly a large segment of the population is embracing fascism as the solution.

Rob

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Kolber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Feb 17, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: [Democrats Online] MUST READ -- Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

February 17, 2006  Conservatives Endorse the   Principle
Our leader über alles   by Paul Craig Roberts  

Last week's annual _Conservative  Political Action Conference_
(http://www.cpac.org/)  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_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001799_pf.html) , 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  Phoenix_says_
(http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid3643.aspx)  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_ (http://www.fed-soc.org/)  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.

         
      Find this article at: 
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8558


SPONSORED LINKS
Democrat p; chronicle Democrat bumper sticker
Democrat t shirt Democrat button Democrat single


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RobsList" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Robslist
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to