Monday, November 19, 2007

Newsweek Blogger Karl Rove Drives Leftwingers NUts!!!



As soon as I heard that Karl Rove would be blogging for Newsweek magazine, I knew it would drive the Left absolutely NUts!!! I decided right then and there to DUFU the first story that Rove posted, knowing it would be rich in hilarious DUFU material. I was not wrong as you can see in the ranting replies to Rove's BLOG titled, "How to Beat Hillary (Next) November." You can read Rove's blog on the Newsweek stuff. For now we can go right to the juicy stuff, namely the OUTRAGED leftwing ranting in response to Rove's mere presence on the Newsweek site. So let us now watch the Newsweek Newsies go absolutely BERSERK at the sight of Rove on a site in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, thanking Rove for providing much great DUFU material in the future simply by acting as the red cape to the Leftwing bull, is in the [brackets]:


Bush is undoubtedly the worst President in history and anyone who supports him should be charged with accessory to mass murder.


[Karl Rove has already been indicted as an accessory to mass murder on May 12, 2006.]


I have been a long time Newsweek subscriber - I cannot believe that this magazine is now stooping to include Karl Rove as a columnist after all he has done to destroy the values once associated with the United States of America. Rove should be in jail, not included as a columnist in Newsweek.

[Good news! Karl Rove has already been indicted on May 12, 2006. He will be heading to jail in just 24 business hours.]


Poor Karl Rove. One of America's most despised citizens yet still Newsweek finds his schtick relevant. Keep spinning away Mr. Karl as I will not be listening, nor reading your advice. What a sorry excuse for a human you are.


[Then why are you posting on the Mighty Rove's blog?]


illegal wiretapping; torture; unitary executive; outing undercover CIA agent; national debt ; Iraq IEDs not WMDs; My Pet Goat; John Bolton; scientific illiteracy; global warming denier; stem cell research blocker; faith based legislation; Terry Schaivo; Katrina; incompetence; Gonzo; bootlicker


[...Karl Rove obsession...]


I am strongly considering cancelling my subscription to Newsweek. How dare you give this scum a forum to spew his vile nonsense. If you don't think he is vile, just do a little research on what he did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000. Newsweek needs to rethink this big time.


[Would you prefer that Newsweek balance Markos Moulitsas with Hugo Chavez?]


I am strongly considering cancelling my Newsweek subscription. How dare you give this scumbag a forum to spew is vile nonsense.


[You were stupid enought to subscribe to Newsweek when you can read it for FREE online?]


Why should anyone listen to Rove? He has helped divide this country as never before and was totally wrong about the 2006 elections, not to mention being a part of the outing of a national security asset, Valerie Plame. He is a proven liar and does not believe in democracy. He is not a journalist, only a party hack who should be dismissed as irrelevant.


[He got under YOUR skin so it is already worth it to have Karl Rove onboard.]


Newsweek is colluding with Rove and other neocons to keep the Lie going. You are paying a traitor who outed a CIA agent to be a Bush apologist. MY spouse and I boycotting both you and Time magazine. The Huffington Post and other web outlets are the media future anyway. Adios MSM. Joe Hartill


[Posted the loon who conveniently forgets that it was RICHARD ARMITAGE who outed the Plame looking for Fame.]


You disappoint me giving this traitor a voice in this publication.


[Feel the tolerance!]


Karl Rove has done a lot of damage to our democracy, and you reward him with a regular column


[Translation: Karl Rove helped Republicans win elections.]


I'm shocked Newsweek would let Karl Rove write a column. The man used the media to out a covert CIA agent. Shame on you for hiring this treasonous swine.


[Maybe Newsweek should hire RICHARD ARMITAGE instead.]


Karl Rove, Newsweek? What are you thinking? When my subscription runs out, and at this point I wish it were today, I will not be subscribing again. I don???t need Karl Rove. You don???t need Karl Rove. No one needs Karl Rove. There are lots of people out there with opinions and ideas worth thinking about, but but he is not among them. Get a grip, Newsweek.


[The only opinions you want to read about are those you already agree with.]


Why the heII is Newsweek giving this war criminal liar a column? Absolutely disgusting, Newsweek! I'm canceling my subscription too!


[Posted another loon trying to make us believe he had a Newsweek subscription to begin with.]


Karl Rove has already shown that he is the most divisive person in politics.


["Divisive" meaning he WON elections for Republicans.]


Please Newsweek, do you really think you should be publishing his garbage in your mag? Cancel my subscription.


[Newsweek must have the highest circulation in the world. Suddenly TONS of people seem to have subscriptions that they want cancelled.]


I cancelled my subscription. I want trustworthy, honest journalism and that is not Karl Rove. He has been involved in naming a CIA agent (read Hubris) voter caging, the list goes on. If you agree, cancel your subscription, this is the only way that Newsweek will hear you,

[All you fellow loons who don't have subscriptions. Pretend you now have subscriptions that you are going to cancel because of the appearance of the EVIL Karl Rove in Newsweek.]


My mother and I have been subscribers of Newsweek for years,we are disheartened that you would give space to the radical right or the radical left.Aren't we divided enough without all this.The only ones salivating over this are the pundits who want to see a slug fest at the expense of the nation.


[Another among the MILLIONS who have suddenly discovered that they were Newsweek subscribers.]


I canceled my subscription, and I let Newsweek know that I will restart the subscription as soon as Rove is out of the picture. Please let Newsweek know how you feel.


[Another Newsweek "subscriber."]


Supposedly he is the best there is at making up lies, utilizing innuendos, sending out attack groups like the Swift Boat Liars with the incredible memories of thirty years before, and generally using any and all unethical and inmmoral tactics possible without the slightest degree of shame.


[Hey! You forgot to mention that you were cancelling the Newsweek subscription that you never had in the first place.]


I can't believe that Newsweek has this sociopath on it's payroll. I agree that the biggest payback for Rove will be that he is history; irrelevant; a punchline that might be funny if there weren't so many innocent dead people as a result of his lies.


[And yet you remain completely OBSESSED by him.]


Rove is the person that is most vile and calculating. He doesn't say anything that won't further his agenda. His strategy is one of disinformation, double talk, and folksy rumination.


[Cancel your non-existent subscription.]


Why are you giving this liar, cheat and thief a forum for his venom. Next to Dick Cheney he's the biggest (rhymes with stick) in political history. Let's start seeking those with advice on how to become the best Americans we can be, not the most vlllainous.


[You mean like Markos who stated he didn't care when Americans were killed in Iraq?]


Newsweek... now another useless rag... Rove represents what has gone so wrong over the past 30 years. Warmongering without conscious; greed without conscious; political bitterness without conscious; total disdain for debate without.... Rove's MO is hollowing out America's soul. Are there any Boomer elites out there who can improve on the Great Generation? Or, only rapacious fools willing to make slaves of our future children to fund their greed! Man - with leaders like ours, who needs enemies?


[Posted by a loon who I am sure has "deep respect" for Hugo Chavez.]


Why give this treasonous, lying, mud-raker (these are facts, not opinion or slander) a forum to comment about the upcoming election.


[YUP! Absolutely provable FACTS...but only in the Leftwing Loon Dimension.]


It is exactly men like Karl Rove that made me and my husband, both life-long Republicans, doubt our party. He is a frightfully mean person and I want nothing to do with what he represents.


[When you hear someone claim to be a life-long Republican," that is a sure sign they are really Democrats pretending to have been Republicans.]


Have not renewed my subscription to Newsweek. Will cancel the Post tomorrow. Mr. Rove represents all that is wrong with this nation. Will give my subscription money to John Edwards instead.


[Which means the Breck Girl will get exactly NOTHING from you.]


Rove is a fat pig at the corporate Republican trough. This trough overflowing with swill of corruption and greed, lies and deceipt, human suffering and murder is consumed by Rove and the rest of the sanctimonious Republican Neo Con Party. The pigs at this farm just don't eat the swill they bathe in it. Then while their mouths are still full of the blood money they talk about terrorism, religion and Christ. When they are caught out in their depraved sex acts they say it was the alcohol and now Jesus has helped them to see the light - but they go back to the same life! One thing I know is that every fat pig has his day before he's slaughtered by the farmers knife. God will come and judge the living and the dead and the leaders who have PARTICIPATED in the miseries and deaths of their fellow men WILL BE PUNISHED (including Democrats)..


[Good news! The night nurse is heading straight for your ward right now with the lithium treatment.]


I will cancel my subscription if this propaganda is going to be part of the print edition.


[Another non-subscription cancelled.]


Cancel my subscription to Newsweek. America and Americans are sick of Karl Mastermind Rove.. Please.....don' t cram him and his ideas down our throats any more. How dare you make us listen to him! No more Newsweek for me.


[Your non-subsription has been cancelled.]


Rove and the rest of these traitors should all be on trial for treason and the multitude of crimes that has encompassed. They have caused so much suffering, here and abroad, while avoiding military service in their own lives, brought shame to our country in the process of looting our economy and that of any other country unlikely enough to have assets they covet and made a mockery of our constitutional democracy.


[Merry Fitzmas!!!]


I will be cancelling my subscription to this magazine after many years. Thank you for the opinions and articles over the past number of years. I cannot understand why Newsweek would let this snake in the door. He is pure evil in our time, and he knows it, let there be no doubt. Moving on.....


[Moving on...to another non-subscription.]


I know news week has to print the news, but if what this man has to say is the only news you can find in this corruptable country we live , I`ll not buy your news anymore.


[As if you did in the first place.]


Memo to Newsweek: My subscripton renewal is due in January 2008. Don't even bother to send me your sales pitch, special academic offers or even if your magazine will be free. With King Karl Rove now on your staff, your magazine become nothing more than manure.


[Don't worry. Newsweek won't send you the renewal subscription that never was.]


I am totally amazed that Newsweek would allow a criminal of this stature to become a correspondent. This is on the level of letting Joseph Goebbels write columns about WWII. -Yea I went there, because if the fascist shoe fits. The idea of the Unitary Executive; The violations of the Presidential Records Act; The violations of the Hatch Act; The admission by Bush in several news conferences of violating the FISA law. I am dumbfounded that Rove and the whole lot of them have been allowed to continue to be left free on the streets let alone in government office.


[You forgot to mention Karl Rove's blatant jaywalking and removal of tags from mattresses.]


Hey, Karl, answer the subpoena when it gets to you.


[It will be answered in 24 business hours.]


On a scale from 0 to 10, where 10 equals "cancel my subscription," Newsweek just went from 3 to 9.5.


[On a scale of 0 to 10 that you even have a subcription, I would rate it at ZERO.]

57 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the column. It's a fairly benign list of good ideas from an experience politico.

Hardly incendiary, certainly not inflammatory, it points up the Hillary paranoia and her ability to remember enemies (even unto death, I expect).

The hysterical outrage is funny in the extreme! These clowns are flown in from DU and dKos, and forget they're not on the reservation anymore! Screeching like this in public is a sure way to embarrassment, ignominy and ultimately, oblivion.

Those are real people out there kids! Behave yourselves. You're making liberals look like nutballs!

Oh... I forgot.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, there's an equal, but less literate, amount of screeching from the right about Kos also writing for Newsweek. Ho hum, it's the Internet, the graveyard of rhetoric, where any deranged emu-oil salesman who can barely draw a beaver can pretend to have an audience for his opinions.

11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" it's the Internet, the graveyard of rhetoric, where any deranged emu-oil salesman who can barely draw a beaver can pretend to have an audience for his opinions."

Two bottles of emu-oil and one beaver drawing please Anon 11:46. That is, if you're not feeling too deranged at the moment. Thanks.

12:09 PM  
Blogger Phoenix Knight said...

I note with endless amusement that liberals are consistently allergic to any diversity of opinion.

They literally loathe free speech, don't they? Unless, of course, it tells them exactly what they already think (or what they think now - what they'll laugh at when they grow up).

The irony is astounding. Newsweek is a patently liberal publication. It's bias is unmistakable. It's already now included the biggest lefty blogger on the net.

But liberals shriek and gnash their teeth when Karl Rove offers a pretty bland op-ed piece in that same publication?

The hypocrisy is amazing.

12:15 PM  
Anonymous kayinmaine said...

To Gitmo with Rove!

We want 100% of all human needs provided by the government FREE OF CHARGE. Right away that eliminates medical, and environmental racism.

SOCIALISM IS THE FUTURE! CAPITALISM IS DEAD!

The Reich-Wing has succeeded in purging the Left from mainstream politics, but like
hope, Socialism can never die. The desire to have a world free of masters where the economy operates on a heart rather than fascist and racist greed is a continuity over time. No matter how many laws are implemented, no matter how many unions are busted, no matter how many protesters are shot, no matter how many
progressive women are raped by Halliburton goons, no matter how many media stations are bought off, no matter how many periods of intense propaganda consume our culture - Socialism will emerge victorious.

I’m talking of wiping out capitalism completely, and with it the state. I’m talking about a world where the 30% of the work force currently holding jobs to protect capitalism are freed to do other, more enlightened
things. I’m talking about eliminating crime, fascism, racism, corruption, prostitution, gambling, and sexism by making capital illegal and obsolete. I’m talking about allocating resources to the betterment of humanity instead of war and genocide!

The first step is to outlaw driving for all but one day a week. Second time violators will be executed. Exceptions will be made for government officials and industries that get the good word out (media, film). Right away this puts us in compliance with the enlightened Kyoto Treaty and will prevent the flooding of coastal cities (and their large minority populations).

We demand the abolition of all corporations and private property. Instead, government subsistence centers will be enacted in every neighborhood to care for every person’s every need!

If we’re to survive then the entire world will shift to Socialist values. It is only natural as people by nature are social animals and tend towards progressive ideals. They want what’s best for themselves and their families, and divisive,
regressive, fascist American Taliban government schemes don’t deliver.

A national economy must be built up on Socialist ideas. You can’t “patch it in” and expect it to work - as we have seen by the rape of unions, as we have seen by the meltdown of regulations, as we have seen by the dissolution of
workers’ rights, fair trade, and livable wages. The system will crash and burn and be rebuilt.

TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS, FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS MEANS!

12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ummmm.

"No".

You can't have that, or anything that remotely looks like that.

No.

Here's a cookie. Go away.

12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Getting libs weaned away from any MSM outlet is a good thing. Someday they might even begin to think.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This [capitalistic] trough overflowing"

At least the trough has something in it - when Ms "TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS, FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS MEANS!" (who can't even get the quote right) gets her way, the trough will dry up. Then the "elites" will pull on the jackboots, pull out the guns, and libs will re-learn - once again - that fascism has its roots in socialism.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous jimmy hendricks said...

I stuck up for you the other day, PJ. A guy I work with said that your blog wasn't fit to wipe his ass with, and I said that that wasn't true.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...fascism has its roots in socialism.

Let's examine that...

While I can see a cause and effect between Allende and Pinochet, it remains for you to explain to me how the policies of Pinochet were rooted to those of Allende.

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

or, if Pinochet isn't your cup of tea, please explain how General Franco was rooted to the Spanish socialists.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Son Of The Godfather said...

Libtards get bent over the silliest things... Is there a "Democratic Rage Boy" yet?

When will you pussbuckets start rioting over Rove's column like those idiots and the "cartoons of blasphemy"?

You can only prove your convictions by getting pepper-sprayed or tasered... Anything less is NOT a commitment!

PS: And make sure someone's got a camera so we can laugh at you...

...again.

3:17 PM  
Blogger The Gunslinger said...

"The Left is called the Left, and the Right, the Right because of their respective positions on the IQ Bell Curve." --Carol Negro


And every time they open their mouths, they prove it.

The hollow, meaningless ranting characterizing almost every comment by the Lefties on this post, as well as the previous one, and their nearly universal employment of foul language leaves no doubt as to their intellectual level.

Shame really. There is no way to engage them in rational conversation, which, unfortunately, keeps them from learning a thing.

3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will someone in Maine please take Kay to the pharmacy to refill her meds???

As for the Rove-blog comments, I love it! Anything that makes the moonbats shriek and wail MUST be a verygoodthing!

4:41 PM  
Anonymous Britt said...

Umm...Kay has stitched together a bunch of different idiot lefty talking points.

I call satire. Maybe it's true patriot's new name?

4:59 PM  
Blogger Tazzerman said...

Wasn't it Newsweek that published the fake but accurate story of the flushed Korans??

Yeah, there was some AWESOME journalisim..

5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Fascism and Socialism

Read your history books! Hitler's party was the National Socialist party. They were joined by Communists for a while until Hitler classified them as mostly Jews and started wiping them out too.

Democrats == Social Authoritarianism == National Socialism == Nazi

Hillary is the face of Big Brother, Social Authoritarianism, Nazis!

5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Britt said...
"I call satire. Maybe it's true patriot's new name?"

More like tp's twin. I'm still hoping tp will someday let out who he/she is.

Skul

5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats == Social Authoritarianism

So, you see the likes of Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco and Pervez Musharraf as Democrats? Tell me please, from what socialist base of support did they gain their power?

7:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fascists do not care about means, socialist or capitalist, they care only about controlling the seat of power as the endgame.

8:04 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Well, Pinochet and Franco, at least, allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a democratic government. Pinochet was not a fascist (except to Lefties, for whom anyone who opposes Communism and Stalinism is a fascist) and Franco was less a fascist than a typical Hispanic caudillo.

Both gained their base of power from the *resistance* to socialism. Did either the Chilean or the Spanish Marxists *ever* win a majority vote? (Hint: no.) Of course, no Lefty *ever* wants to admit the connection between Marxism/Stalinism (i.e. international communism) and Fascism (i.e. national socialism). Mussolini, who founded Fascism, had previously been a high-ranking official in the Italian Communist Party.

Anyhoo, I keep assuming that stuff like that spewed by kayinmaine is satire until I realize how hard it is to satirize those loons. kay was *totally* believable, while being totally, crazily hilarious.

8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Social authoritarianism means the government runs things, not free enterprise capitalists exercising property rights. A command economy and government control can be done either by "democratically-elected" populist strongmen or by militaristic dictators. The common thread is "from each according to their means to each according to their needs" (whatever the government decides those "needs" or "means" are.

8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did either the Chilean or the Spanish Marxists *ever* win a majority vote?

Salvatore Allende did indeed win a majority vote in Chile, and you need only look to present day Spain to see a Socialist Party as the largest elective body in government.

8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In addition, the 1936 election in Spain gave victory to a coalition that included the Socialist and Communist parties.

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did either the Chilean or the Spanish Marxists *ever* win a majority vote? (Hint: no.)

Dave, here is my "hint" for you...

Read up on how General Pinochet came to rule in Chile, and then square that with what you call "a peaceful transfer of power."

9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, South American reigns are not the issue here. Neither is the distinction between "Democrat" (a US Political party) and democratic (a version of mob rule).

What I stated earlier is that Democrats (the US political party) are Social Authoritarians and thus equivalent to Nazis in that their hope is to establish a Socialist nation in the United States (a Republic, not a democracy) so that the few (Democrats and government bureaucrats) can rule the rest of us and determine who has "means" and who has "needs" and re-distribute wealth according to their whims and commands by force of their government-controlled guns and "laws".

RESIST if you love the United States!

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...their hope is to establish a Socialist nation in the United States (a Republic, not a democracy)

Numbnuts,

The USA has been, from 1787 until this very moment, a federal constitutional republic. Kind of makes you want to throw up a little bit, doesn't it?

10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since Rove is the evil genius who engineered W into 2 terms a s gov. of TX and 2 as Pres. of the USA, you'd think the DUmmies would be all ears, to find out how it's done.

I'd bet Hillary has studied up.

I don't subscribe to Newsweek, but I will flush a Koran down the toilet, in their honor.

10:36 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"What I stated earlier is that Democrats (the US political party) are Social Authoritarians and thus equivalent to Nazis in that their hope is to establish a Socialist nation in the United States (a Republic, not a democracy)" Anon

Astounding. The Nazis. Did the Nazis support gay marriage? I can't remember. Equal rights? I seem to remember something about Hitler having a dream. And, as we all know, the Nazis were total pussies when it came to war.

You're a friggin lemming, anon.

12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Astounding. The Nazis. Did the Nazis support gay marriage? I can't remember. Equal rights? I seem to remember something about Hitler having a dream."

(Note: I'm not the same "Anonymous that you just replied to).
Well, Hitler was known to have been a big supporter of abortion, something you usually don't see conservatives supporting. One of his first acts as chancellor of Germany was to legalize it, and he felt it was a priceless method of thinning out the non- Aryan populations in the areas the Nazis conquered.

8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Astounding. The Nazis. Did the Nazis support gay marriage? I can't remember. Equal rights? I seem to remember something about Hitler having a dream."

(Note: I'm not the same "Anonymous that you just replied to).
Well, Hitler was known to have been a big supporter of abortion, something you usually don't see conservatives supporting. One of his first acts as chancellor of Germany was to legalize it, and he felt it was a priceless method of thinning out the non- Aryan populations in the areas the Nazis conquered.

8:42 AM  
Anonymous john f not kerry said...

"If you don't think he is vile, just do a little research on what he did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000."

I'm sure you would have LOVED McCain had he been elected over Algore.

8:48 AM  
Anonymous Ray said...

"The USA has been, from 1787 until this very moment, a federal constitutional republic. Kind of makes you want to throw up a little bit, doesn't it?"

Our system of government makes me very proud as our Republican form of Representative Democracy works very well, doesn't it?

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

please cancel my subscription

11:18 AM  
Anonymous Ray said...

"-Yea I went there, because if the fascist shoe fits. The idea of the Unitary Executive"

Why is it so hard for DUmmies to understand that all federal executive powers are vested in the President, as per the Constitution?

Article II, Section I states: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America."


That, by definition, make the President a "Unitary Executive."

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ray,

Tell me where you see any grant of power here for Presidential signing statements, allowing the executive to disobey the law of Congress...

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

2:29 PM  
Anonymous john f not kerry said...

DUmmie,

Did youobject very much when Boy Clinton did the same thing? I didn't think so.

4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi anon, you asked:

Tell me where you see any grant of power here for Presidential signing statements, allowing the executive to disobey the law of Congress...

There is no grant allowing the president to violate the law. A signing statement is like the record of debate in congress, a record of how the various people understood the law.

Sometimes judges will use such evidence when trying interpret the law in a particular case, i.e., where a law is ambiguous, the intent of the folks involved can be looked at.

A notable example being that The Federalist is not uncommonly cited in SCOTUS decisions where the issue is constitutional, rather statutory or regulatory.

If the president signs a bill that has some provisions he views as an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, then whether he states so in a signing statement, or quietly ignores the provision makes no difference.

If the issue comes before a court the court will weigh the president's position against the constitution. A signing statement is simply a way of explaining the president's view, nothing to be afraid of.

Best Regards from a fellow anon.

11:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:02

Your explanation does not reflect reality. President Bush has not been using signing statements as a record of how various people understand the law, or as a record of how the bill met with Congressional compromise.

He has used signing statements to issue his own legal interpretation of the law, and thus how federal agencies will carry out the law, according to that interpretation.

You say the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, which is certainly true, as long as there is a citizen aware enough of the Presidents' secret machinations to bring a suitable challenge. I would remind you that this President, in particular, does not operate openly, and there has been much lost in the way of good faith when it comes to accepting signing statements as being a way for the President to simply explain his view.

11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi anon, thanks for thoughtful reply, not often found here. You said:

He has used signing statements to issue his own legal interpretation of the law, and thus how federal agencies will carry out the law, according to that interpretation.

Naturally, as president it his job to enforce the laws, and therefore he needs to instruct those responsible to him in how to carry out the law. Any president will do this, whether or not he made a signing statement.

As an aside, I doubt the constitutionality of federal agencies: They tend to be neither fish or fowl, in some ways creatures of congress and in some ways responsible to the executive, and somehow supposed to independent of both.

In a sense they are supposed to be a fourth branch of government, which of course doesn't exist in the constitution. Special prosecutors, such as Starr and Fitzpatrick also fall into this category.

Best Regards from a fellow anon

11:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: signing statements...

ten examples.

11:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:55

It does seem to me you have stretched the language of Article Three.

You say: "Naturally, as president it his job to enforce the laws, and therefore he needs to instruct those responsible to him in how to carry out the law."

Article Three says: "... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

The word enforce does not appear.

12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

correction: article two.

12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi anon: From your post, and link, I picked the first example, below:

re: signing statements...

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.


Here we have an instance of the president thinking that there are sometimes overriding government interests in limiting the application of a constitutional right, in this case the fourth amendment.

The president may be right or wrong, but this sort of consideration has long been considered legit by the SCOTUS, e.g., Oliver W. Holmes famous example of falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theatre doesn't get first amendment protection.

Perhaps more relevant is the opinion of Justice Jackson that the constitution "is not a suicide pact", (1949, Terminiello v. Chicago, dissenting opinion).

Such reasoning was also used by Lincoln during the Civil War to suspend habea corpus, even though the constitution grants that power only to congress.

Whether it is right in the present case is a matter of debate, but the legal aspects of it have a long record in our history. This is not something and unique to the current president.

Other controversial exercises of presidential authority include:

Th. Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana, without funding from congress.

Andrew Jackson's ignoring the SCOTUS's decision re: The Cherokee's in Georgia.

The Alien and Sedicisson acts, signed by president J. Adams

The imprisonment of Eugene Debs by Woodrow Wilson.

The intimidation of the SCOTUS by FDR, with his threat of court packing.

Our system of government was designed to create conflict, as a means of self correction. Paralysis in government is not a bad thing, as government typically gets things wrong and always tries to encroach on our liberties.

Bush will be gone in Jan 2009, and I'm sure president Hillary will relinquish the powers Bush has tried to accrue to the office. ;) Sorry for the dig, but had to do it !

Best regards, anon.

12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our system of government was designed to create conflict, as a means of self correction.

Agreed. As a citizen, I do not see my role as an observer, but as a participant in the conflict. I do not agree with the actions of President Bush. If Hillary Clinton were to trample on the 4th amendment I would not agree with that, either.

With that, I bid you good night...

12:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi anon, you said:

Agreed. As a citizen, I do not see my role as an observer, but as a participant in the conflict. I do not agree with the actions of President Bush. If Hillary Clinton were to trample on the 4th amendment I would not agree with that, either.

With that, I bid you good night...


I agree with you. There is much I don't like about pres. Bush. I will be glad to see him gone.

Goodnight to you, it's my bedtime too. Hope to see you here again,

Best, and happy Thanksgiving.

JB

1:04 AM  
Blogger PoliticalCrunch said...

Man, and they used to call me a "Clinton Hater', I thought you Liberals believed in the 1st Amendment and free speech?

For all of those who keep convicting Rove of Outing Plame, get your facts correct, Richard Armitage was the source of the story and he never testified that he was ordered to do so by anyone, and no one was even charged with outing Plame illegally let alone convicted of it.

But of course, why would you let these facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories!

This is a case where I would have to congratulate this main stream media outlet for once, publish both sides and let people decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong!

2:11 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Hitler...abortion...and he felt it was a priceless method of thinning out the non- Aryan populations in the areas the Nazis conquered." anon

Gawd. I love you guys. So liberals are Nazi's thinning out the...um...who? Jews? Communists?

No. I think you mean 'conservatives' will be selectively "thinned out". I think what you're saying is that liberals, like Hitler, will begin aborting the unborn children of their enemies, the conservatives. Really scary stuff. And at the same time they're forcing abortion on conservatives, literally ripping the womb from conservative moms, the liberals will be aiding and abetting the terrorists and, well, Satan. So Fucking Scary.

And batshit nuts.

What's the goal of terrorism?

2:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think what you're saying is that liberals, like Hitler, will begin aborting the unborn children of their enemies, the conservatives.

Heh -- it's even better than that -- liberals typically are the ones to practice as well as support abortion and their birth rates reflect that. They're aborting themselves out of existence. On those grounds I support and encourage abortion! :)

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Ray said...

" Anonymous said...

Ray,

Tell me where you see any grant of power here for Presidential signing statements, allowing the executive to disobey the law of Congress...


Annon, sorry to take so long to respond.

Presidential Directives and/or Signing Statements are vehicles used to implement and instruct members of the executive branch of the government on matters of executive policy, including policy on executing federal law. There is nothing unconstitutional about them, although some of those policies may be considered unconstitutional or violations of federal law.

The "laws of congress" as you put it, can not interfere with the President's Constitutional authority over the power of the executive branch of the government. When Congress pases a law that violates the separation of powers and attempts to force the President to yield executive authority to Congress, the President can, and should, refuse to follow said law and can, if he wishes, instruct the executive branch of the government to follow his polices an not the policies of Congress. Only the President has the Constitutional authority over the executive branch of the government. Only the President can make and enforce policies effecting that authority. Congress can not effect executive powers, it is outside their Constitutional authority.

If members of Congress feel that the President is violating federal law with one or more of his policies, those members, if they wish, or any other individual citizen, may challenge said policy in a court of law as the Constitution allows for citizens to redress their grievances of the government in court. This would allow the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the policy in question violate federal laws. If the Supreme Court decides that a particular policy, or any portion of that policy, is in violation of federal law that court can order the President to stop implementing that policy or face reprisals such as being charged with contempt of court. Until then, it is the President's prerogative as to what policies will be used to execute his authority.

It's all a part of the checks and balances that our government relies upon to serve the United States of America and all it's citizens. I believe these checks and balances have worked well for us in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only the President has the Constitutional authority over the executive branch of the government. Only the President can make and enforce policies effecting that authority.

Ray,

Thank you for your reply. It's much the same that I received from JB in the late evening.

I'd ask you to please show me where the word "enforce" appears in Article Two of the Constitution.

Also, how do you explain these Article 1 section 8 authorities over an executive branch power...

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
(which would include military tribunals)

5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ray,

Also, Article Two itself grants legislative power over the executive if deemed necessary.

"...shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

5:35 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Heh -- it's even better than that -- liberals typically are the ones to practice as well as support abortion and their birth rates reflect that. They're aborting themselves out of existence. On those grounds I support and encourage abortion! :)" anon

Ha Ha. What a joker!

Let me see if I've got this straight. Liberals are like Hitler. Hitler wanted to abort the babies of his enemies. Liberals support abortion and are aborting themselves. And this is why liberals are like Hitler.

Makes sense to me.

3:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't say liberals are like hitler -- i said they're like nazis -- social authoritarians.

10:44 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"I didn't say liberals are like hitler -- i said they're like nazis -- social authoritarians." anon

Splitting hairs. Face it, you're full of it. Another lemming.

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

troglaman:

Read this http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html

Democrats == national socialists == Nazis

11:03 AM  
Anonymous imsmall said...

REMORSE AFTER WAR

Ignominy of what we did
May peal unto the rafters
Of highest heaven, that amid
The war-zone were the crafters

Of violence beyond belief
Against true innocents--
This I retain, with no reprieve;
The grief never relents.

It is the legacy of having
Been sent to occupy
A people that did not want saving
Nor either asked to die;

But like the wielder of Death´s scythe
So by machine of war
I chopped them down, with laughter blithe,
But now my sorrows pour.

11:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home