he does not attend the Tehran "Revisionist" meeting
HARETZ = AHOLIBAH
ARUTZ = AHOLAH
GORE BLASTS BUSH FOR 'DANGEROUS BREACH'
Hall, Washington, D.C.
Mon Jan 16 2006 12:40:14 ET
Congressman Barr and I
have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today
with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to
express our shared concern that America's
Constitution is in grave danger.
In spite of our
differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the
American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the
unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly
breathtaking expansion of executive power.
As we begin this new
year, the Executive Branch of our government has been
caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly
declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the
established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.
It is imperative that
respect for the rule of law be restored.
So, many of us have come
here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens
to put aside partisan differences and join with us in
demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved.
It is appropriate that
we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and
legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged America to breathe new
life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all our people.
On this particular
Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last
several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped-one of hundreds
of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the
U.S. government during this period.
The FBI privately called
King the "most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country"
and vowed to "take him off his pedestal." The government even
attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide.
This campaign continued
until Dr. King's murder. The discovery that the
FBI conducted a long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic
surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr.
King's life, helped to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping.
The result was the
Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted expressly
to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an
impartial judge to verify that there is a sufficient cause for the
surveillance. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress and for
almost thirty years the system has proven a workable and valued means of
according a level of protection for private citizens, while permitting foreign
surveillance to continue.
Yet, just one month ago,
Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the
Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for
the last four years and eavesdropping on "large volumes of telephone
calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United
States." The New York Times reported that the President decided to
launch this massive eavesdropping program "without search warrants or any
new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection."
During the period when
this eavesdropping was still secret, the President went out of his way to
reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course,
judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens
and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.
surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false.
does not surpise me
Moreover, as soon as
this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President
not only confirmed that the story was true, but also declared that he has no
intention of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.
At present, we still
have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know
about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels
the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the
law repeatedly and persistently.
A president who breaks
the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding
Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not
men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had
enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was
designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the
rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the
legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be
a government of laws and not of men."
executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate
legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the
judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in
the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too
reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of
James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive,
and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether
hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very
definition of tyranny."
Thomas Paine, whose
pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution,
succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he
said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."
Vigilant adherence to
the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures
that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which
means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in
shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the
people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive
officials operating in secret without constraint.
The rule of law makes us
stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and
examined through the processes of government that are designed to improve
policy. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching
and checks the accretion of power.
A commitment to
openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many
serious mistakes. Recently, for example, we learned from recently classified
declassified documents that the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually
based on false information. We
now know that the decision
by Congress to authorize the Iraq War, 38 years later, was also based on false
information. America would have
been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes
in our history. Following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.
The President and I
agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply
no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack
on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens
Where we disagree is
that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect
Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us
weaker and more vulnerable.
violated, the rule of law is in danger.
Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power
of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches
to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside
its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to
information that would expose its actions, it becomes
increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that
ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a
government of men and not laws.
The President's men have
minced words about America's laws. The Attorney General openly conceded that
the "kind of surveillance" we now know they have been conducting
requires a court order unless authorized by statute. The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been
doing, and no one inside or outside the Administration claims that it does.
Incredibly, the Administration claims instead that the surveillance was
implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who
attacked us on September 11th.
This argument just does
not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a
number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the
Attorney General: he concedes that the Administration knew that the NSA
project was prohibited by existing law and that they consulted with some
members of Congress about changing the statute. Gonzalez says that they
were told this probably would not be possible. So how can they now argue that
the Authorization for the Use of Military Force somehow implicitly authorized
it all along? Second, when the Authorization was being debated, the
Administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would
have authorized them to use military force domestically - and the Congress did
not agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others,
made statements during the Authorization debate clearly restating that that
Authorization did not operate domestically.
the Congress Agreed in 1991 to supercede all Constitutional Law via HJR 104,
When President Bush
failed to convince Congress to give him all the power he wanted when they
passed the AUMF, he
secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a
useless bother. But as Justice
Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not
merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It
is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division
of authority between President and Congress."
This is precisely the
"disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the
steel seizure case.
It is this same
disrespect for America's Constitution which has now brought our republic
to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the
disrespect embodied in these apparent
mass violations of the law is
part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the
Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both
For example, the President
has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to
seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a
threat to our nation, and that,
notwithstanding his American citizenship, the person imprisoned has no right
to talk with a lawyer-even to argue that the President or his appointees have
made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person.
President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the
rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about
what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their
families that they have been imprisoned.
At the same time, the
Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat
prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern
that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries
around the world.
100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive
Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In
the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of
torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the
victims were innocent of any charges.
This shameful exercise
of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since
General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has
been observed by every president since then - until now. These
practices violate the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention
Against Torture, not to mention our own laws against torture.
President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in
foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our
behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of
their techniques for torture.
Some of our traditional
allies have been shocked by these new practices on the part of our nation. The
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan - one of those nations with the worst
reputations for torture in its prisons - registered a complaint to his home
office about the senselessness and cruelty of the new
U.S. practice: "This material is useless - we are selling our
souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful."
Can it be true that any
president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is
"yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are
there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the
inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration,
kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?
The Dean of Yale Law
School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch's claims of
these previously unrecognized powers: "If the President has
commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the
power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to
license summary execution."
his people of Dan as a tribe of ITSREALHELL via Noahide enslavement
The fact that our normal
safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of
executive power is deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact
that the Executive Branch has followed a determined
strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield
but then refusing to do so and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts
of the legislative and judicial branches to restore our constitutional
For example, after
appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the
continuation of torture, the President declared in the
act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it.
Similarly, the Executive
Branch claimed that it could unilaterally imprison
American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal.
The Supreme Court disagreed, but the President engaged in legal maneuvers
designed to prevent the Court from providing meaningful content to the rights
of its citizens.
A conservative jurist on
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the Executive Branch's handling
of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle
"at substantial cost to the government's credibility before the
As a result of its
unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the Executive Branch has now put
our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for
America's representative democracy are far higher than has been generally
These claims must be
rejected and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the
fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation.
For more than two
centuries, America's freedoms have been preserved in part by our founders'
wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three
co-equal branches, each of which serves to check and balance the power of the
were purchased by the RED Sofiet Talmudic REDS
On more than a few
occasions, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in
collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled
"constitutional crises." These crises have often been dangerous and
uncertain times for our Republic. But in each such case so far, we have found
a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live under the
rule of law.
alternative to democracy throughout history has been the
consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strongman
or small group who together exercise that power without the informed consent
of the governed.
Talmudic Hassidic Chabad Lubavitcher jews
It was in revolt against
just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared
at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in
the Civil War was "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and
so dedicated, can long endure," he was not only saving our union but also
was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they
fail, as did Athens and the Roman Republic upon whose designs our founders
drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another
There have of course
been other periods of American history when the Executive Branch claimed new
powers that were later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president,
John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts
and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents.
When his successor,
Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses he said: "[The essential
principles of our Government] form the bright constellation which has gone
before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation...
[S]hould we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to
retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty
Our greatest President, Abraham
Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the
worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by
President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red
Scare and Palmer Raids. The
internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a
low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive.
And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and
parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.
But in each of these
cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its
equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess
Gore should read the RED PROTOCOLS
There are reasons for
concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle
may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for
decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power.
In a global environment of nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and
the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative
to conduct intelligence and counter intelligence activities and to allocate
our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as
an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has
almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. As
Justice Frankfurter wrote in the Steel Seizure Case, "The accretion of
dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the
generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even
the most disinterested assertion of authority."
a RED Sofiet Talmudic shot being fired
A second reason to
believe we may be experiencing something new is that we are told by the
Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the
country is going to "last
for the rest of our lives." So
we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by
other Presidents to justify arrogations of power will persist in near
Third, we need to be
aware of the advances in eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with
their capacity to sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and
to mine it for intelligence. This adds significant vulnerability to the
privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as
the potential power of those technologies. These
techologies have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the
apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle
Don't misunderstand me:
the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted
efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative
to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility.
Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the
Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation
from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not
possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is
appropriate and when it is not.
But the existence of
that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab
lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship
between the executive and the other two branches of government.
There is a final reason
to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of
overreach and regret. This Administration has come to
power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this
excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our
This legal theory, which
its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more
accurately described as the unilateral executive,
threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the
constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all
recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting
as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the
judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has
pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing
his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can,
conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to
the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of
this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.
This effort to rework
America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure
dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a
subservient Congress and judiciary is-ironically-accompanied by an effort by
the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is
based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided
and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.
authority of their dragon they serve and their seven Universal anti-Christ
The common denominator
seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and
This same pattern has
characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive
Branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated
ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive Branch
For example, CIA
analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin
Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and
became fearful of losing promotions and salary
the fear of the jews many became their TREASONOUS BLASPHEMOUS Proselytes
Ironically, that is
exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J.
Edgar Hoover's view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The
head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell
the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his
colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. "It was evident that we had
to change our ways or we would all be out on the street.... The men and I
discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a
serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes,
children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on
their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum
written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."
framers understood this dilemma as well, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a
power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)
Mt:6:24: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Soon, there was no more
difference of opinion within the FBI. The false accusation became the
unanimous view. In exactly the same way, George Tenet's CIA eventually joined
in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between al Qaeda
and the government of Iraq.
In the words of George
Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things
which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong,
impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually,
it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check
on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield."
Whenever power is
unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses.
In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence
flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.
Last week, for example,
Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping
on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to
9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the
names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to
them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of
the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this
information, it was never used to protect the American people.
is often the case that an Executive Branch beguiled by the pursuit of
unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it
be given still more power. Often, the request itself it used
to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has.
Moreover, if the pattern
of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become
a permanent part of the American system. Many conservatives have pointed out
that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next President
will have unchecked power as well. And the next President may be someone whose
values and belief you do not trust. And this is why
Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this President
has done. If this President's attempt to dramatically expand executive
power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will
be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the
name of national security, to restrict our liberties in
a way the framers never would have thought possible.
The same instinct to
expand its power and to establish dominance characterizes the relationship
between this Administration and the courts and the Congress.
In a properly
functioning system, the Judicial Branch would serve as the constitutional
umpire to ensure that the branches of government observed their proper spheres
of authority, observed civil liberties and adhered to the rule of law.
Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability
of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its
hands - notably those challenging its ability to detain
individuals without legal process -- by appointing judges who will be
deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the
independence of the third branch.
The President's decision
to ignore FISA was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that
court. Congress established the FISA court precisely to
be a check on executive power to wiretap. Yet, to ensure that the court could
not function as a check on executive power, the President simply did not take
matters to it and did not let the court know that it was being bypassed.
President's judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure that the
courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power.
As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a longtime supporter of a powerful
executive - a supporter of the so-called unitary
executive, which is more properly called the unilateral
Blasphemous Dictator of the Dragon, the Nasi of Dan
support his confirmation or not - and I do not - we must all agree that he
will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise,
Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of
executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency
And the Administration
has supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted
largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the Republican majority
in the Senate to permanently change the rules to
eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the
President's judicial nominees. The assault has extended to legislative
efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of courts in matters ranging from habeas
corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the Administration
has demonstrated its contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade
judicial review of its actions at every turn.
But the most serious
damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of
congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking
as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its
I was elected to
Congress in 1976 and served eight years in the house, 8 years in the Senate
and presided over the Senate for 8 years as Vice President. As a young man, I
saw the Congress first hand as the son of a Senator. My father was elected to
Congress in 1938, 10 years before I was born, and left the Senate in 1971.
The Congress we have
today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There
are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored
that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of
government under its
current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the
Treason via HJR 104, PL 102-14
Moreover, too many
Members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of
their time not in thoughtful debate of the issues, but
raising money to purchase 30 second TV commercials.
There have now been two
or three generations of congressmen who don't really know what an oversight
hearing is. In the 70's and 80's, the oversight hearings in which my
colleagues and I participated held the feet of the
Executive Branch to the fire - no matter which party was in power. Yet
oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today.
The role of
authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual
appropriation bills are hardly ever actually passed anymore. Everything is
lumped into a single giant measure that is not even
available for Members of Congress to read before they vote on it.
Laws made by the Hassidic Pharisees who control Heil Bushitler
Members of the minority
party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments
are routinely not allowed during floor consideration of legislation.
Party Unified unilateral Government = Dictatorship of Dan
In the United States
Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative
body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even
on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator
Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"
Byrd sponsor the Noahide Law Akt in 1991 in the 102nd Congress?
In the House of
Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest
every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435.
Protocols...Parliment sitting reduction
And too many incumbents
have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for
re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give;
and, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely
controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization.
So the willingness of
Congress to challenge the Administration is further limited when the same
party controls both Congress and the Executive Branch.
Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often
Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.
Look for example at the
Congressional role in "overseeing" this massive four year
eavesdropping campaign that on its face seemed so clearly to violate
the Bill of Rights.
The President says he informed Congress, but what he really means is that he
talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate
intelligence committees and the top leaders of the House and Senate. This
small group, in turn, claimed that they were not given the full facts, though
at least one of the intelligence committee leaders handwrote
a letter of concern to VP Cheney and placed a copy in his own safe.
Though I sympathize with
the awkward position in which these men and women were placed, I
cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well
as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking action to
protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional
Moreover, in the
Congress as a whole-both House and Senate-the enhanced role of money in the
re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned
deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive
Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the
integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.
the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the
failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach
by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the
I call upon Democratic
and Republican members of Congress today to uphold
your oath of office and defend the Constitution.
Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal
branch of government you're supposed to be.
But there is yet another
Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be
examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with
the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.
people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy.
We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as
citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of
Thomas Jefferson said:
"An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public
departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that
people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority
in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock
principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All
just power is derived from the consent of the governed."
The intricate and
carefully balanced constitutional system that is now in such danger was
created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a
whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely-read newspaper
essays, and they represented only one of twenty-four series of essays that
crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers
recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia.
Indeed, when the
Convention had done its best, it was the people - in their various States -
that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of
Rights was made integral to the document sent forward for ratification.
Amaraka cannot even tell you what the Bill of rights are. Amaraka you asked
for it, you have it now
And it is "We the
people" who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an
integral role in saving our Constitution.
And here there is cause
for both concern and great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political
essays has long since been replaced by television - a distracting and
absorbing medium which sees determined to entertain and sell more than it
informs and educates.
Blasphemy and mammon greed
Lincoln's memorable call
during the Civil War is applicable in a new way to our dilemma today: "We
must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
Forty years have passed
since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source
of information. Its dominance has become so extensive that virtually all
significant political communication now takes place within the confines of
flickering 30-second television advertisements.
And the political
economy supported by these short but expensive television ads is as different
from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were
different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of
people in the Dark Ages.
The constricted role of
ideas in the American political system today has
encouraged efforts by the Executive Branch to control the flow of information
as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in
the hands of the people.
Administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain the secrecy of its
operations. After all, the other branches can't check an abuse of power
if they don't know it is happening.
For example, when the
Administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare
prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about
the cost and design of the program. But, rather than
engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the Administration
withheld facts and prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it
sought from the principal administration expert who had compiled information
showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far
higher than the numbers given to Congress by the President.
Deprived of that
information, and believing the false numbers given to it instead, the Congress
approved the program. Tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing- all
over the country- with the Administration making an appeal just this weekend
to major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out.
take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences
of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the
White House who had no scientific training. And today one of the
leading scientific experts on global warming in NASA has been ordered not to
talk to members of the press and to keep a careful log of everyone he meets
with so that the Executive Branch can monitor and control his discussions of
One of the other ways
the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by
consistently resorting to the language and politics of
fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without
regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower
said, "Any who act as if
freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear
confess a doctrine that is alien to America."
Fear drives out reason.
Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics
of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and
founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors,
they would have been hung as traitors.
The very existence of our country was at risk.
the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down
the streets and lynched."
President George H.W. Bush, quoted by Sarah McClendon
House Reporter) in her June 1992 Newsletter.
Yet, in the teeth of
those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British
army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we
faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be
launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is
America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the
march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult
to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to
imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully
protected our freedoms and now
it is up to us to do the same.
We have a duty as
Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current
circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard
our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive
overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent
belief that he need not live under the rule of law.
I endorse the words of
Bob Barr, when he said, "The
President has dared the American people to do something about it.
For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
A special counsel should
immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious
conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe
violations of law by the President.
We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a
special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of
justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor
in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.
Republican as well as
Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the
Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the
criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of
Americans by the President.
whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the
Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it
involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the
sensitive areas of national security.
Third, both Houses of
Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into
these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President.
And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
should all be hanged....but it is not going to happen, for it is written and
Fourth, the extensive
new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and
enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and
until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to
protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the
kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.
any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to
private information concerning the communications of Americans without a
proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this
apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
Freedom of communication
is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our
particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against
either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media
conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.
I mentioned that along
with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am
filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the
vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more
vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.
As Dr. King once said,
"Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its
movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance,
for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close
By Judeo-Churchinsanity, I do not think
ROME - ITALY
During my time in Lugano and connected to
the Biala Rebbe, meant that the Jewish
dialogue with catholic church came through the Rebbe, (of which i
cannot talk publically about, only to say that we were lucky to see many
things, we only ever went there twice on the 26th and 27th February 1995 and
2nd Oct 1995, which both visits have been documented and when the time is
right - i shall be able to reveal all !)
According to tradition, all the valuables
plundered by the Romans in 70 AD from the destruction of the temple in
Jerusalem were brought to Rome, and are believed to be in the vaults of the
Certainly it is well known that the hand
written texts of the Me'iri had been found in the Vatican vaults, and with an
arrangement with Hebrew University, Jerusalem were released in 1970's .
The only resemblance of anything jewish we
saw in public view was a "breast-plate" Choshen, which the Kohen
Gadol - Priest wore with 12 stones in side . Unfortunately we could not take
photos inside St Peters Vault Musuem .
Tana Devei Eliyahu writes in the section "Peskita Rabosi" about
sitting at the gates of Rome - and indeed it was an unusual and strange
feeling - sitting at the gates of Rome - looking into St Peters Square, like
all the thousands of tourists, all you can do is sit and stare in amazement,
and that is what we did for hours !"
The Kindness of Pope John Paul II
Once permission is given, i shall be able
to reveal (and i sure all the israeli and jewish press will have the full
story too!), the records given to the Rebbe by the kindness of the Vatican, a
project that Rebbe, Rabbis, Israeli government and Vatican have been working
on for years . With special thanks to Pope John Paul II who in his
younger years helped save many polish jews from the murderous nazis.
Please see this link for
photo of Rabbis with Pope in 2004 and here
for photo of meeting and here for an article in Arutz 7 Sheva praising the
Paul II for his help by Chief Rabbi of Israel and the recent meeting
in 2005 were the Rabbis thanked the Pope for all his kind help . Photo
above reproduced with thanks to M.S.
taken in 2004.
It was an amazing meeting, and in
reflection and in reality of historical perspective, it is actually a
remarkable "miracle" that a loving and exceedingly helpful dialogue
has finally been opened between Christians and Jews, Thank GOD that the world
of "religion" is changing !
We are sure that when everything will be
revealed, in hindsight we will reflect remarkably the kindness of this Pope
John Paul II to have transformed relations between Jews and Christianity, with
a deeper undertsanding that we are ALL children of the same GOD. We are all
created with the same spiritual soul and potential to be kind, loving and of
service to GOD and humanity.
But not the creator
Jesus the Christ the WORD of God
Photo of the Pope in Jerusalem with Sefardi
and Ashkanazi Chief Rabbis
Who are members of
For over 1000 years so many old Jewish
manuscripts, were not available, and thanks to Pope John Paul II who has
encouraged good relations and whom allowed these books to be copied onto
microfilm and printed in Israel, the world of "religion" is being
transformed with a common goal to all humanity - that is to learn religious
tolerance for all compassionate human-beings. Pope John Paul II teaches that
there are many ways to serve GOD, each group and civilisation has their way,
and provided they are not hurting others, and their pathway is compassionate
LOVE then every way of belief in GOD should be encouraged. (p.s. for those
"narrow minded" religious fanatics who may criticise these comments,
then they need to learn and recognise that only through love, tolerance and
compassion for everyone will the world become a safer and peaceful place ! )
Noahide Peace, to murder wonderfully
Is Buddhism Kosher?
By Tzvi Freeman
I would be interested in your view regarding Buddhism. For example, do you
believe that all Buddhists are nothing more than idol worshippers and that
they must be converted to follow the Seven Noahide Laws, and/or do you feel
that that there is something of value in Buddhist methods for spiritual
You will find throughout our people's history a process by which some
elements of alien cultures are adopted while others are rejected. Not a very
formalized process -- the rules are rather vague and tenuous -- but
nevertheless successful in avoiding the syncretism that has dissolved other
cultures while imbibing all that is good from the world about us. You will
find distinct traces of ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Athens, Rome, Persia,
Cordoba, Istanbul, Florence and every other civilization in which Jews have
lived. But you'll only find those aspects which are in confluence with the
body and soul of Torah. The rest we spat up like ipecac.
Interestingly, as much as we took from those alien cultures, they were even
more affected than we were.
Today, this refinement process is extending to Buddhism. Many Jews began
their spiritual trek with the path of Buddha and continued by discovering
their own heritage in Torah. A twofold process occurs: Buddhism has evolved
more in the past thirty years than in all its history before, to the point
that what is presented today in America as Buddhism is already more Jewish
than it is Buddhist. And, secondly, when those practicing "Jubus"
return to Jewish practice, they reject those aspects that are anathematic to
Torah, while making good use of those aspects that are complimentary.
Many of the Buddhist practices and world-concepts are in direct opposition
to the Torah concept of singular Divine providence. When it comes to Tibetan
rites, for example, Shamanism abounds. Even if the intellectual Buddhist
conceives of these notions in a highly abstract fashion, they are still the
notions of idolatry against which our father Abraham struggled. For a Jew to
burn incense in front of a statue is horrifying, no matter what he will say
are his inner intents. Similarly, the proclamation, "In Buddha I find
refuge" is a catastrophe for the Jewish soul.
On the other hand, the mental rigor and personal discipline of these
practices have proven of great benefit to many in their praying and meditation
(both of which are organic to Judaism). Furthermore, it is likely that the
essential teachings of the original teacher who is now called Buddha contain
much of the ancient wisdom that was lost. Buddha lived at the time of King
Solomon, as did Lao Tse and Pythagoras. Perhaps we are now only sifting
Solomon's lost jewels out of the mud in which they have been buried for two
and a half millennia.
As for those who were born into Buddhist culture, I
believe that they will find a particular path within the framework of the
Noahide guidelines that leads them to the truth within their own heritage. In
fact, I see at least one group in Japan quite close to this already
Mordechai of Sanhedrin and his
Talmudic Megillah whore Monica Esther did not slay enough "Goyim in Persia
the first round, the final stage of Purim Iran mirders soon to begin by the hand
of the Harlots Pimp
Though most of us breathed, slept and ate the Gulf War, the victory that took
place there last year has faded quickly from our collective national memory.
Most of the troops are back, old glory has come down, and the yellow ribbons
are faded. The "B" rations prepared in the event of a long,
dragged-out war have been airlifted to Russia where they will be distributed
to the hungry souls there. Whatever can be neatly wrapped up from the war is
There's another victory in the Persian Gulf, though, whose anniversary we
Jews are celebrating this week. And though it happened not one year ago, but
over 2,000 years ago, it has not faded from our collective
Jewish memory. It is the festival of Purim.
2,347 years ago in ancient Persia,
the wicked Haman schemed to destroy the Jewish People.
so goes the fables of their shoah's, shonuf
But through a miraculous sequence of events, involving Mordechai and Queen
Esther, the tables were turned; Haman and his henchmen were hanged on the
The modern-day Haman, Hussein, tried to use high-tech weapons to wreak
havoc on the Jewish people in the Holy Land. But, miraculously, even those
SCUDs not deflected by the Patriot Missiles did minimal damage compared to
similar attacks elsewhere in the world.
Haman, in those days, did not need to resort to newfangled inventions in
his attempt at the first "Final Solution." With the mere signing of
a royal proclamation giving him the power to do as he pleased, our fate as a
people seemed to be sealed.
But, Haman's plans were foiled by Esther, who had been placed in the palace
by G-d to deflect Haman's evil decree. their
Talmudic non god the dragon murderer they serve from
Every year the victory of the survival of the Jewish people, despite all
odds, is celebrated on the joyous Festival of Purim. And although the story of
Purim happened thousands of years ago, its lesson of faith and trust in G-d is
as relevant today as ever.
This year, celebrate Purim, and send a message of true Jewish
strength--that trust in G-d is stronger than anything.
Jesus did Battle with the beast and
defeated him at Calvary
Some very sick
Eye on Iran
Posted: 18/7/05 8:20
Yoni has posted a reminder to what was already published on http://gog1.com
. He thinks that this is the true indication about the time of the Geula, and
this is what we have to wait for, and he thinks it's very important.
The things he wrote are based on the writings of Rabbi Yehonathan Iveshitz
æöå÷"ì a few hundreds years ago. The things are founded in the
Talmud. The main thing that the Rabbi writes there is that even if the time of
Geula will arrive, we shall still have to wait further, until Persia
(Iran) shall fall in
the hands of Edom (US/EU). In other words, even if
Moshiach should have already been here, we should still have to wait and
suffer until that time will come, because Rabbi Iveshitz writes that
Moshiach will continue to suffer, and the suffering of Moshiach is the
suffering of the people of Israel. This is taken from the book éòøåú
ãáù part B, end of Drush 13.
The post quotes the origin, and quotes a Midrash about the revelation of
Moshiach, that will happen at the time when the whole world would be
terrorized by Persian (Iranian) actions.
äîééçì åäéåãò replied that according to our Sages in the Gomorrah,
first Rome will fall in the hands of Persia
(and he interpreted it as Iranian bombing in New York), and only then will
Rome take over Persia.
He added that according to his understanding, first will come the war with
North Korea, and then something that seems a war between India and Pakistan.