20051223

Hail King George the 3rd


Hail King George the 3rd

Who but a king could proclaim his authority greater than the Constitution and the Amendments that soldiers are supposedly fighting and dying to protect in Iraq. King George has for all intensive purposes declared the 4th and 9th Amendments null and void.

Now if you believe that King George possess power to ignore or suspend the 4th and 9th Amendments, that would mean that he also possess the power to ignore or suspend the 2nd Amendment. And with the 4th Amendment out of service, the people won't have much of a defense as they their guns slip between their fingers.

I am really suprised that the Republicans are not more concerned about the disregard Bush has for the Constitution that he was sworn to protect. The irony is positively oppressive.

Still there are those that are not afraid to say what is on their minds. Recently Norm Ornstein said of Bush, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

John Dean was overheard to say that Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Of course, these men should be ignored for they are clearly part of the "hate" Bush crowd. Well if they are not maybe they should be.

It is rather difficult to hear the words of Norm Ornstein and John Dean above the voices that call out for the death of Emmanuel Goldstein.

9 Comments:

Blogger Jet said...

I'm happy to hear John Conyer's voice. He's compiling the truth, slowly but surely.

Thanks for visiting my blog. Your art is great!

12/23/2005 10:20 AM  
Blogger Semper Fi said...

Here's a challenge: If you knew the enemy was operating within our borders and communicating to fellow-terrorists outside of the country, plotting to blow Milwaukee back to the Stone Age or turn the upcoming Rose Bowl and 80,000 fans into a barbecue pit, would you like to intercept those communiques and perhaps prevent the loss of tens of thousands of lives? And, if so, in this age of instant cell phone and email communications, time being of the essence, you would do what...?

I continue to be amazed at how many of the liberal-left fail to realize we are in the midst of World War III against an enemy who knows no borders or national allegiance, and who is hell-bent on killing infidels (meaning you and me) and eradicating Western culture from the Earth.

It would seem that when the question is one of survival, some extreme measures may be required to ensure that survival....

12/23/2005 10:39 AM  
Blogger M A F said...

SemperFi,

So this is the noble sacrafice that Bush was talking about. Sending soldiers fight and die so that others can have their rights taken away from them.

Your scenario is most laughable. I suggest that you read this article. Second, if we take your scenario at face value, there is no reason or justification for violating the Constitution. FISA would allow for the investigation of these individuals and not at the expense of the Constitution.

Of course messianic Republicans like yourself who worship Bush this is to be expected. You are one of the voices calling out for the death of Goldstein.

Of course, in reading your comments it is quite clear that you would prefer to give up freedom for security. You wrote, and believe "It would seem that when the question is one of survival, some extreme measures may be required to ensure that survival...."

Well I suppose that I could accept your "wisdom" such as it is. Or I could rely upon the words of Benjamin Franklin who wrote "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

So, when given a choice between these competing ideolgical principles, I'd choose Franklin everytime.

12/23/2005 10:35 PM  
Blogger Semper Fi said...

Your verbal tap-dance doesn't quite cut it; you didn't answer the challenge. Like most Defeatocrats, you are long on hyperbole and short on solutions.

So, I ask the original question one more time: If you knew the enemy was operating within our borders and communicating to fellow-terrorists outside of the country, plotting to blow Milwaukee back to the Stone Age or turn the upcoming Rose Bowl and 80,000 fans into a barbecue pit, would you like to intercept those communiques and perhaps prevent the loss of tens of thousands of lives? And, if so, in this age of instant cell phone and email communications, time being of the essence, YOU WOULD DO WHAT...?

12/23/2005 11:26 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

Asked and answered. 'FISA would allow for the investigation of these individuals and not at the expense of the Constitution.' Sorry I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

So what do I get in response? You accuse me of being a Democrat. Well I suppose if I were a Democrat this would still be irrelevant to the discussion. Then again it was for your moral and not mine.

Besides, I already pointed out that your "what if" scenario is all BS. (Click the link.) But I suppose that the one answer you will understand best is something that Bush and Scott McClelland often rely uponn in just this sort of situation; 'I won't respond to hypotheticals.'

12/24/2005 2:24 AM  
Blogger Semper Fi said...

You missed the "time being of essence" part of the challenge.

FISA has 72-hours within which to respond, meanwhile Mohammed Atta is buying his ticket at Logan to join you on your flight to California (and his rendezvous with, coincidentally, 72 virgins -- one for each hour that FISA twiddles their collective thumbs).

But, yeah, I know, you don't want to consider the hypothetical -- I mean, pre-September 2001, who would have ever hypothesized that four airliners would be hijacked on the same day by Muslim terrorists, resulting in 3,000 people being murdered...?

So, what will you say when the facts come out -- and they will -- that Bush and the government have acted within the law and the Constitution?

12/24/2005 11:56 AM  
Blogger M A F said...

You mean like the facts that came out and showed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD?

Or the facts that revealed that there was previous knowledge about terrorists plans to fly planes into buildings?

Better still, please site where in the Constitution that Bush or any president has the authority to ignore the Constitution including the 4th and 9th Amendments.

12/25/2005 12:21 AM  
Blogger Semper Fi said...

Hey, it's your blog. If you don't -- or can't -- come up with an answer to the original challenge and instead want to persue tangential issues to divert attention away from your inability to respond to the challenge I originally posed, we have no reason to continue the dialogue. Have a nice life. Adios.

12/25/2005 11:13 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

Oh, poor semper fi,

Didn't get your way and now you won't come out and play.

When push comes to shove and asked to put up or shut up, I see that you have chosen to shut up.

12/26/2005 3:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home