Skip to comments.Bush continues Clinton Agenda
Posted on 06/22/2002 4:55:30 AM PDT by rambo316
Bush continues Clinton agenda
Posted: June 22, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Referring to President G. W. Bush's new Department of Homeland Security, former President Bill Clinton told a gathering of Council on Foreign Relations members last week, "We have been building this for a long time." For once, Clinton told the truth.
What he began constructing following the Oklahoma City bombing, Bush has succeeded in bringing to fruition. America is about to have its very own Gestapo.
If Al Gore were president today, Republicans in Congress would no doubt rise in righteous indignation to quickly kill such a plan. However, with a fellow Republican in the White House, all such opposition has vanished. The bottom line is Bush is pursuing Clinton's agenda and getting a free pass.
Consider this: Bush has already issued 57 executive orders and has already created 47 new federal agencies. His Justice Department has declared that U.S. citizens, whom it declares to be "Enemy Combatants," have no constitutional rights none. Such people do not even have the fundamental right of legal representation.
Georgetown University law professor David Cole rightly said, "This is really an astounding assertion of authority. It's not just that you have no right to a lawyer, it's that you have no right to even have a hearing. If this is true, then there is really no limit to the president's power to label U.S. citizens as bad people and then have them held in military custody indefinitely."
Furthermore, Bush now says he has the right to initiate first-strike attacks on any nation or people at (his) will. Imagine how future history will record America launching its own versions of Pearl Harbor.
Bill Clinton received more good news from the Bush White House.
Just this week, he learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft is ready to permanently close the government's investigations into Clinton's criminal activities. In other words, President Bush has declared that Bill and Hillary Clinton are above the law.
Beyond that, Bush's support for liberal policies on things such as the federalization of airport security, proposed amnesty for illegal aliens, a boost in funding for Clinton's AmeriCorps program, a worst-ever education bill and a constitutionally-challenged campaign-finance reform bill simply reveal Bush's perpetual propensity to continue Clinton-style government.
In spite of Bush's dismal record, he continues to receive the support and approbation of conservatives, pastors and Republicans throughout the country.
If Clinton would have known that a Bush administration would be this successful in promoting his policies and programs, he would have supported Bush and not Gore in the 2000 election. Maybe he did.
I've been thinking that for a while now. What better way to destroy a movement than from the inside?
Ping to you gentlemen.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Tariffs, CFR, caving in on every possible conservative view, oh yeah but I forgot 'conservatives' are in power and he's 'building a coalition'. The same tripe I'm told when I speak out against the coronation of Giddy here in NC. If this is conservative, let me off the merry-go-round now. Bush is, has been, and will be for the rest of his one term presidency (we can only hope, 4 more years of this and we'll all be living in boxes because it's 'safer' for us) a sell out. He has left the Conservative Right in his tracks. Used them for what he needed and moved on. He is a centrist at best, and I don't care if the entire Senate turned Republican tomorrow, it wouldn't help a single thing. The type judges he would elect if the Republican party wins the Senate will be only a shade of what conservatives stand for. Both parties have thrown away the Constitution and are just winging it to stay in power
"Rewards are necessary in order to make the soldiers see the advantage of beating the enemy; thus, when you capture spoils from the enemy, they must be used as rewards, so that all your men may have a keen desire to fight, each on his own account."
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
|Airport With bin Laden, Bush Ties To Close ^
|Posted by Howlin to rdavis84
On News/Activism ^ Jun 22 3:25 PM #10 of 15 ^
This is YOUR title.
You are baiting
"This thread has been deleted."
If you click on the link you'll note that IS the title of the Article from the Galveston News.
But somebody doesn't like information about ties to the Arabs and the Bush Family, do they?
|Airport With bin Laden, Bush Ties To Close ^
|Posted by rdavis84
On News/Activism ^ Jun 22 12:30 PM with 14 comments
GALVESTON COUNTY DAILY NEWS ^ | January 28, 2002 | Ted Streuli
GALVESTON COUNTY DAILY NEWS Texas' Oldest Newspaperhttp://www.galvnews.comCopyrigh © 2002 Galveston County Daily NewsAirport with bin Laden, Bush ties to closeBy Ted Streuli The Daily NewsPublished January 28, 2002LEAGUE CITY Houston Gulf Airport is closing. The small airfield that caters to private planes has been sold to developers, said Airport Manager Helen Paige, and the 75 airplanes housed there will have to find new accommodations by April 1. The airport opened in 1967 and became an often-mentioned piece of real estate in news stories because its ownership history tied business interests of President Bush to the bin Laden family and Sheik...
In other words, Steamship can't believe that his/her tin foil theories have no "traction".
Oh BTW, Chucky Baldwin is the epitomie of the definiton of "malcontent", meaning he just complains about everything..
Yup the mess Rush made, by bashing Bush using the NYT as his primary source. He has been off the air for a week probably licking his own self induced wounds.
Then I realize that chances are, they vote in the meat world. Thats not funny.
It's just more blantant since the CFR's members created the UN to aid their agenda.
They openly praise their god with pagan agendas.
On February 1, 1992 president george herbert walker bush stated:
"My vision of a New World Order forsees the UN with a revitalized peacekeeping function. It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN charter to which we henceforth pledge our allegiance."
You know the UN charter that Alger Hiss (known Russian spy and CFR member) wrote.
Stalin said America would be taken down with a war of concessions, and that's what's happening. We are excusing ourselves right out of our country and dooming our children to a future of slavery.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'Liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party Presidential candidate.
Well "We" do know how it's happening and who's doing it, but we are afraid to confront them.
I relate this to breeding. Like the serfs centuries ago, we choose to remain silent hoping we won't be touched. That somehow we will sneak by.
Well, they are going for the whole enchalada this time and everyone will be touched.
Hey, isn't there a ballgame on, we can deal with this later.
Someone will have to deal with it, are we going to leave it up to our children to fight our battles? Have we become that yellow?
James Paul Warburg (son of Paul Moritz Warburg, chief architect of the Federal Reserve Act), boasted confidently on February 17, 1950 before the U.S. Senate:
"We shall have World government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
It looks to me like the American people have decided to consent to the overthrow of America.
Most animals will fight to protect their young, that's admirable. What we as American's are allowing to happen to our children is pathetic.
How can they defend themselves, against what they won't be allowed to know?
Have you seen this? Frankly I am getting sick of this sort of crap. This administration has done little to help assure the safety of our homeland. Now they apparently want to make sure nobody snitches on them.
June 22, 2002
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A provision in the bill seeking to create a Homeland Security Department will exempt its employees from whistleblower protection, the very law that helped expose intelligence-gathering missteps before September 11.
The legislation now before Congress contains a provision allowing the director of the proposed agency to waive all employee protections in Title V, including the Whistleblower Protection Act. The act protects government employees from retaliation or losing employment for speaking out on waste, fraud and abuse.
FBI Agent Coleen Rowley blew the whistle on her agency for mishandling a probe of terrorist suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, who has been indicted by a federal grand jury on six counts of conspiracy in the September 11 attacks. Mrs. Rowley testified before a Senate panel earlier this month that a "climate of fear" prevented an aggressive investigation of the man whom authorities believe was to be the 20th hijacker.
As the 21-year veteran testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Bush proposed the new Cabinet position in a prime-time televised address.
The protection exclusion has concerned members of Congress and civil-liberties activists. "I don't think we want to just let a provision like that sail through without taking a close look at it," says Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican.
"If you look back at recent history, it has been a very, very important aspect of ferreting out the truth regarding government actions. Much of what we know that went wrong in the White House in the '90s was initially highlighted by special agent Aldrich." The reference is to Gary Aldrich, who wrote "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House."
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, sent a letter Wednesday to Tom Ridge, White House homeland security adviser, asking that the administration guarantee full application of the act to employees of the proposed department. "Whistleblowers are key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy," Mr. Grassley says.
Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, government agencies have placed a greater emphasis on secrecy and restricted information for security reasons, he says. "With these restrictions come a greater danger of stopping the legitimate disclosure of wrongdoing and mismanagement, especially about public safety and security. Bureaucracies have an instinct to cover up their misdeeds and mistakes, and that temptation is even greater when they can use a potential security issue as an excuse."
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service last month was required to pay back wages and cancel suspension and demotion orders for two Border Patrol agents who told a newspaper about security problems along the U.S.-Canadian border.
The agents, assigned to the INS field office in Detroit, were recommended for discipline after they told the Detroit Free Press that Michigan's border lacked the resources to adequately protect the country from terrorists. Agents Mark Hall and Robert Lindemann said the 804 miles of shoreline border were guarded by 28 field agents, one working boat, several damaged electronic sensors and one broken remote camera. They were cited for not following instructions not to talk to reporters and recommended for 90-day suspensions and one-year demotions.
The exclusion of the whistleblower law is also opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says protections against retribution for those such as Mrs. Rowley would not exist in the new agency.
"It's very scary. The public needs to know what the government is doing," says Tim Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. "Sometimes, it hurts Democrats; sometimes, it hurts Republicans, but it's always informative and even more necessary to protect whistleblowers in homeland security than any other government agency. It's not just tax dollars spent wisely, but doing what we need to do to keep people safe."
Other elements of the plan are long on secrecy and short on accountability, Mr. Edgar says.
The department would not be required to release information under the Freedom of Information Act. This would eliminate the agency's responsibility to answer questions from the public. Advisory committees that normally include public input would be immune, and the Cabinet secretary would have veto power over inspector general audits and investigations.
"We need to know real facts, and not just spin from the agency," he says. · Jerry Seper contributed to this report.