Reading Material
Jan 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am by Susie
Avedon suggests that Chris Dodd use this if he has to filibuster. I wholeheartedly agree. From Al Gore’s Jan. 16, 2006 speech in Constitution Hall:
This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which ought to be 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, cannot be checked by Congress. And 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, both domestic and foreign. And 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 subservient 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 a form of dominance in the world.
And the common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.
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 employees.
Please, go read it all and remind yourself what a real leader sounds like.
Every time I read something of Gore’s, I immediately think to myself, “What if?”
I do, too, but then I immediately get on my knees and thank my higher power for the lesser of two evils.
In protecting our country’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Gore seems to forget that we removed one entire segment of the population from enjoying a right to life when Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973. He also seems to overlook the probability that our basic liberties will diminish or disappear completely should a global takeover be accomplished by Muslim factions. Has Gore missed the overwhelmingly convincing case for keeping the Islamic government far and away??
He speaks of initiating criminal charges against the President and his accomplices. In fact, he suggests hiring Special Counsel to oversee the integrity of our President; remarkably, he just so happens to have the right guy for the job, and he goes on to informally endorse Patrick Fitzgerald as the one.
Afterwards, he goes on to elucidate the inequity among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government. The term, “Commander-in-Chief” is an often-used one, he purports, by the President, one that seems to underscore the ever-expanding influence the Commander-in-Chief wields over Congress and the Judiciary by virtue of the unitary executive theory.
Susan has highlighted in “BOLD” type this quote from AG’s cautionary tale:
“And the common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.”
To this I would counter the following:
To which motive would Mr. Gore ascribe the encroaching march of the Muslim brigade (a/k/a new world order-to-be) into our realm? He brings the President to task for invasion of privacy and infringement of our civil rights via the procurement of phone records, minus a warrant, for the purpose of Intelligence. A warrant to justify such governmental intrusion is a mandatory safeguard, suggests Gore, one that must be enforced in the future in order to protect the country’s civil rights.
While I’m sure he has a point in advocating the proper warrant to accomplish this task, the breach of citizens’ rights to privacy in communications seems less definitive. Has Gore considered the implication of - or the logical reason behind -national “Intelligence?” Has he balanced the benefits of adherence to communications privacy rights against the precarious conditions existing in our country, ones that our forefathers could not possibly have foreseen? Has he considered the possibility that national security Intelligence is surreptitiously conducted for obvious reasons? That perhaps the information is not made part of public record because it IS part of a covert operation, after all? Good grief. Al Gore has been spending too much time in Hollywooden consorting with celebrities and other conduits for make believe if he thinks this issue is as benign as whether or not to eavesdrop on a possible adulterer or flim-flam artist.
We the People do not need to know the reason for every activity undertaken by the Executive branch and its members or agencies at a time such as this. We have enough proof that the threat of monumental danger to our country is unprecedented. We took his word for it when Osama Bin Laden professed AL-Qaeda’s mission, which was to kill the infidels.
When all is said, summarized, and, finally, evaluated on its overall merit, Al Gore’s opinions bring to mind the illusive wisps that shake free from a puff of dandelion. His accusations and remedies defy reality; they are fantasies - just like the wishes made by children when they blow on dandelions in the wind.