C: "Bush will be president until he dies"

[Nathan]

_http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/22/2472078.htm
US President Barack Obama has been administered the oath of office a second time at the White House because a word was out of sequence when he was sworn in yesterday.

It is also interesting to note that the Wikipedia entry for United States presidential inauguration is "currently protected from editing until February 13, 2009 to deal with vandalism".

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_inauguration

And further: a Wiki user also claims on the talk page of the Obama Inauguration that "the law (the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) states that noon on January 20th during an election year is the precise time the elected President and Vice President takes office. They may take the oath before or afterwards, but that doesn't change the exact time they assume the duties of their office, per federal law". So basically this Wiki user is saying the oath is just a formality?

It makes one wonder if there are any conditions that must be met in order for the elected President and Vice President to take office, other than just waiting for the clock to tick to noon on Jan 20th. What if there are conditions which are later discovered to have NOT been met? Something could always pop up down the track ... perhaps during a declared state of emergency.

I suppose anything is possible.

 

[dant]

_http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/22/2472078.htm
US President Barack Obama has been administered the oath of office a second time at the White House because a word was out of sequence when he was sworn in yesterday.

It is also interesting to note that the Wikipedia entry for United States presidential inauguration is "currently protected from editing until February 13, 2009 to deal with vandalism".

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_inauguration

And further: a Wiki user also claims on the talk page of the Obama Inauguration that "the law (the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) states that noon on January 20th during an election year is the precise time the elected President and Vice President takes office. They may take the oath before or afterwards, but that doesn't change the exact time they assume the duties of their office, per federal law". So basically this Wiki user is saying the oath is just a formality?

It makes one wonder if there are any conditions that must be met in order for the elected President and Vice President to take office, other than just waiting for the clock to tick to noon on Jan 20th. What if there are conditions which are later discovered to have NOT been met? Something could always pop up down the track ... perhaps during a declared state of emergency.

I suppose anything is possible.

The question I have is: Was Justice Robert's "slip", intentional,
opening the door for something else, later on perhaps?

 

[anart]

The question I have is: Was Justice Robert's "slip", intentional,
opening the door for something else, later on perhaps?

Roberts and Obama repeated the Oath in the map room of the White House again yesterday - just to be sure it was correct, in what was called a 'preponderance of caution' - just fyi.

 

[Cyre2067]

Fwiw I found this thread to be fascinating, chuckling at the myriad interpretations. That's one thing I really enjoy about the C's - they don't spoon feed. They give clues and we have to do the Work to figure it out.

Personally I felt Bush to be dead a long time ago, he could have been killed and replaced by a robot and none of us would have been the wiser - or his essence may have just died from the strain of all the lies he spouted. Eitherway I have no malcontent over the fact that Bush is no longer our President.

 

[Laura]

Now, there's this:

Who Will Be There for Obusha When the Floor Drops Out?
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/176839-Who-Will-Be-There-for-Obusha-When-the-Floor-Drops-Out-

David Michael Green
The Regressive Antidote
Sat, 21 Feb 2009

For months now, I've been wondering if Barack Obama would turn out to be another FDR - a bold and progressive figure who was the right match to the crises of his time - or another Bill Clinton - a pathetic sell-out who was the right match for little beyond pursuing his personal eight-year joy-ride at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now I'm wondering if I haven't been asking the wrong question altogether. Maybe the real mystery is whether Mr. Yes We Can will be another Bill Clinton or, gulp, another George W. Bush.

It's true, Obama has already made a few quasi-progressive decisions, such as removing some of the insanity from American foreign aid for reproductive health and beginning the process to close down Guantánamo.

That's well enough, and I give credit where it's due - though I wouldn't exactly describe these as bold moves.

I didn't have high expectations that Obama would turn out to be Eugene Debs, come back from socialist heaven (Stockholm?), and so I can't say that I'm surprised he's not. But I am pretty shocked and disgusted at some of the decisions we've seen so far, including many that Dick Cheney would have little problem praising (in some cases, because Cheney made them originally).

That's just too much. And it's also insulting to progressives who worked hard to put this guy in office, believing - minimally - that he was a better choice than either another Clinton or anything the Neanderthal Party would drag out. I can't say that I donated a lot of my hours or cash to Obama's campaign, and yet - just the same - I'm already feeling cheap, dirty and used by what I'm seeing.

The cabinet is a starting place. Like many of the terminally hopeful, I've been saying for a while that it doesn't matter so much who goes in the cabinet, it matters who makes the decisions. This is mostly true, with about one-and-a-half caveats. The half-caveat is that a smart cabinet secretary can take advantage of a president who is out to lunch, like Bush and Reagan were. I suspect Obama won't often be accused of that during his presidency, though I'll confess that looking at the rollout of the economic stimulus program, and the rollout of the administration itself, this last month, I am way less impressed with the basic competence of these folks than I expected to be - whatever their politics.

But, the other major caveat is the symbolism of cabinet choices. Why was it necessary to put three Republicans in it? And, so far, not a single confirmed progressive? Cabinet choices are usually as much emblematic as they are truly administrative. We have to assume that real policy decisions come from the White House, and that most fools in the cabinet will at least be able to get through four years of making speeches without completely crashing the department, while their deputy actually runs the show (notable exceptions noted and excepted, of course). So presidents therefore use their cabinet in part to make a statement, pay off some political debts, and placate groups within their coalition. So far, so bad, 'cause the main statement I'm getting from the picks of this yet-another-nominally-Democratic president is "Hard to starboard, matey".

But take a look at some of Obama's policy decisions in his first month in office, and it gets considerably worse from there. Even today, months after the election is done with, Mr. Obama is out on the stump saying things like, "You didn't send us to Washington because you were hoping for more of the same. You sent us there to change things."

That's a big 10-4, good buddy. So how come, then, you keep turning to Wall Street pirates to run your economic program? It was bad enough that you've subjected us to Timothy Geithner to run the Treasury and lead your recovery effort. In addition to being a tax cheat and already demonstrably in over his head, this fool is a protégé of both Henry Kissinger and Robert Rubin. In addition to being part of the brain trust that blew the Lehman Brothers rescue decision, he also presided over the original TARP mass looting of the already stinking corpse of the federal treasury. That would be a pretty impressive resume if one intended to earn his living on his back, wearing a coat and tie. However, I thought we were talking about a Treasury Secretary here?

More to the point, though, this guy is the beginning of this particular ugliness, not the end. Last week, the New York Times reported that, "Senior executives at Citigroup's Alternative Investment division ran up hundreds of millions of dollars in losses last year on their esoteric collection of investments, including real estate funds and private highway construction projects - even as they collected seven-figure salaries and bonuses. Now the Obama administration has turned to that Citigroup division - twice - for high-level advisers." Oh boy.

What a shock, then, that even while Obama was pretending to show a wee flash of anger at corporate predators partying on the public nickel the other week, his administration was busy eviscerating the pathetic limitations on compensation it was barely applying in the first place. By the time you get through reading all the caveats, you realize that the $500,000 salary limitation applies to almost no one, and means almost nothing when it comes to those it does apply to. But that's only the third best part of this charade, however. The second best is that even these absolutely paper-thin sanctions on the compensation of executives of failed corporations now sucking the federal teat first have to be approved by a vote of shareholders in order to apply. But - and this is my very favorite part - did I mention that the vote is non-binding?

It actually gets even worse, yet. Now the Associated Press is reporting that, in the wake of Congress' stimulus legislation (and you know what bloody socialists those folks are!), the Obama team is looking to play extra-super-double-sweet nicey-nice with the pirates from Corporate Wonderland: "Facing a stricter approach to limiting executive bonuses than it had favored, the Obama administration wants to revise that part of the stimulus package even after it becomes law, White House officials said Sunday". Obama doesn't want compensation restrictions to apply to all banks on the government dole. Rather, CEOs who crashed those companies and are now living off the taxpayers they spent decades deriding from the vaunted perch of the free market ideological soapbox can still take all they want, thank you very much, unless they are among the unlucky infinitesimally few getting "exceptional assistance" from Barack, Inc.

Apparently, there is some concern that Obama will take Congress' bill and just do whatever he wants with it. You know, kinda like what's-his-name just got done doing for eight years. Never fear, though. Barney "The Enforcer" Frank, and his posse of Democrats led by Sheriff Nancy are on the job. Congressman Frank told CBS the other day: "This is not an option. This is not, frankly, the Bush administration, where they're going to issue a signing statement and refuse to enforce it." Given that, seemingly by his own admission, Democrats in Congress will do nothing to reign in imperial presidents, Congressman Frank neglected to mention exactly what would prevent Obama from doing just what Bad Barney had been allowing Belligerent Bush to do for eight years. Call me cynical, but something tells me that a congressman from Massachusetts saying "This is not an option" isn't going to make the White House tremble in fear, even if they are Democrats there (and only some of them are), and have pretty much long ago gone pro with the whole trembling thing.

Meanwhile, apparently it was young Master Geithner who led the successful battle within the administration not to take away potential third and fourth yachts from the nice men on Wall Street who have caused a global economic holocaust, now reportedly already responsible for 50 million (no, that is not a typo) job losses worldwide. He does make a good point, of course. If you don't pay these people well, how can you attract such fine talent? Imagine how bad this global depression would be if the average S&P 500 CEO compensation in 2007 had been, say, a mere $12 million, instead of the $14.2 million it actually was! Boy, we'd really have a bad economy now! And don't you just feel great that Obama is listening to as sharp a mind as Geithner? This is a cat who - in addition to apparently being an arrogant and capricious manager of his staff - opened his mouth for five minutes the other day and caused the stock market's value to shrink by 4.6 percent. Let's see here... Arrogance, gross incompetence, flack for the overclass...? Golly, could there actually be four Republicans in the cabinet? Do we actually know for sure that this Geithner guy is a Democrat? Would it matter if he was?

As bad as all this is, I wish I could say that my problem with Obama is just that he is yet another president of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy. Unfortunately, there's more. There was ol' Joe Biden, for example, off to Munich for a big security conference, talking about how the Obama administration will continue Ronald Reagan's dream of missile defense, the ultimate defense industry boondoggle. Never mind that, even if it ever worked, and at astronomical costs which wrecked the lives of tens of millions who didn't get education or healthcare instead, any terrorist smart enough to build a nuke or determined enough to buy one would also be clever enough to put the thing on a boat and sail it up the Potomac. This is a trillion dollar gift of public funds to the arms industry that just can't seem to get buried. I think Reagan knew that. But why doesn't Obama? Or - far worse - likely he does.

Then there's the undoing of Bush's faith-based initiative, one of the greatest examples of Constitution shredding out there, from a guy who was the acknowledged master. Obama has now issued new executive rules regarding the relationship between church activities and state money, but declined to actually revoke Bush's rule, which allows religious organizations to make hiring decisions based on religion, for jobs funded by you and me. I'm not okay with that, and neither is the Constitution. It's grim enough that we have to endure these assaults when we merely have a reactionary executive and a feeble Congress, especially when the latter is controlled by the alleged opposition party. But must we really put up with more such crimes after sweeping the 'liberals' into office?

Still, perhaps the most galling example of Obushism occurred last week in a San Francisco courtroom, where a lawyer from the new (or is it?) Justice Department was asked by the presiding judge whether the government's position might have changed for any particular reason (wink, wink, nod, nod) since the last time the court was last convened to take up this particular case on the question of extraordinary rendition. Bush's Justice Department had argued that the state secrets doctrine required the court to dismiss the case without even hearing evidence, effectively giving the president the right to do anything to anybody, without judicial protection or remedy of any sort. You know - kinda like the script for a Dick Cheney porno film. Since candidate Obama had severely criticized such patently and fundamentally unconstitutional concepts, the judges on the Ninth Circuit had good reason to expect that President Obama might reverse the government's position in this case. They even asked the government's lawyer a second time, in semi-astonishment, to be sure they were hearing him right. All to no avail. The position of the Obama administration is identical to that of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Yoo. The president can order you to be captured, stripped down to diapers, bagged up, tossed on a CIA plane, delivered to Egypt, Bulgaria or Tajikstan, tortured and maybe even killed. All without any scrutiny by anyone.

Maybe it's just my weak vision, but when I pulled out my copy of the Constitution and pored over it carefully once again, I couldn't find any language of that sort anywhere. In fact, it almost seemed like that document, and the Declaration of Independence, were written by a bunch of angry patriots pissed off at exactly such behaviors on the part of the British crown. Could President Obama, the former constitutional law professor, really be espousing the same civil liberties policies - hardly exceeded in egregiousness - as those of George III and Bush II? I guess I better re-read those documents yet once more.

Especially since another New York Times article, under the happy title of "Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas", just noted that, "In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.'s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone". And, just in case the sum of the above still hasn't depressed you enough, the piece goes on to remind us of how the new administration recently offered its thanks to the British government when a UK court deferred to American pressure in refusing to release information about the torture of a detainee held by the US. Wow.

If this was just another president doing what presidents do, these developments would merely be disappointing. In fact, they are nearly devastating when considered in context. This is the president who follows the one sure to be known as The Great Trampler, and this is the president who heartily criticized his predecessor's constitutional calamities just months ago on the campaign trail, and this is the president only weeks in office, finally revealing his policies, not just his promises. If you care about equality, justice and freedom, there is good reason here, one month into the Obama reign, to be heartbroken already.

Look, I don't expect any president to be one hundred percent in agreement with my positions, brilliant as they universally are on all issues. And least of all did I expect that Barack Obama would be a full-blown lefty, though I still think events might push him in that direction, as they did Franklin Roosevelt. But here's the thing I'm wondering right now, strictly from the perspective of Obama's own self-interest: Who's gonna be there for him when the floor drops out, as it inevitably will at some point? Just who does he think will rally to his support if, for example, a year from now unemployment is up to 15 percent and he has shown no sign of abating this devastating depression?

Will it be the centrist middle class? At some point, they may run well out of patience, their jobs gone, their homes foreclosed upon, their health deteriorating, their hope sagging, and right-wing freaks incessantly screaming in their ears the pounding drumbeat of failed 'liberal' policies.

Does he think it will be those very regressives, who one might have expected to be somewhat chastened by their trouncing in two consecutive election cycles? Because when I look at how John McCain and Lindsay Graham and Rush Limbaugh are reacting to the bipartisan olive branch that Obama extended to them, I kinda don't think so. When I see how many Republicans (three) in both houses of the entire Congress voted for his stimulus bill, I kinda don't think so.

Does he think it will be progressives? Well, I can only speak for myself, but one month in and I'm already feeling burned by this guy. If he continues to cater to the predatory rich in this country, leaving the rest of us holding the bag, and if he continues to shred the Constitution as if he were George Bush's kid brother, and if he is nearly as militaristic as the Strangeloves he just ejected from office, then I really won't care a bit if he gets smashed halfway through his first term. In fact, I might even be happy to see it happen.

So, if it ain't the right and it ain't the center and it ain't the left, just who does Obama think will be there standing with him should his presidency hits the rocks?

When you take away all those folks, just who does he think will have his back in tough times?

The Aryan Nation?

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net

 

[Laura]

More:

Will Obama Restore Constitutional Government?
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/176829-Will-Obama-Restore-Constitutional-Government-

Lewis Seiler & Dan Hamburg
San Francisco Chronicle
Fri, 20 Feb 2009

While most of us have had our attention fixed on the global economic firestorm, President Obama is failing to meet his only sworn responsibility as our chief executive - to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Americans understand that President George W. Bush defiled the Constitution with the Patriot Acts, military commissions, torture, extraordinary rendition and warrant-less wiretapping. Now, just weeks into the Obama era, we are seeing that little has changed in terms of extra-constitutional prosecution of the so-called war on terror. So far, Obama has signed an order banning "harsh interrogation techniques" but may be keeping other reprehensible policies in place, and perhaps adding a few of his own.

President Obama issued an order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison as one of his first official acts. He was duly praised for what seemed a reversal of the sad legacy of his predecessor. Days later, however, the Christian Science Monitor reported that, in seeming contradiction to the Obama executive order closing Guantanamo, nearly three times as many prisoners are being held without due process at an enormous U.S. military prison in Bagram, Afghanistan. Last month, U.S. District Judge John Bates gave the Obama administration until today to "refine" its position on "open-ended detention."

Meanwhile, plans for detention at home are being expanded under Democratic Party leadership. On Jan. 22, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a former judge who was impeached and removed from the bench before being elected to Congress, introduced HR645, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. This bill calls for the establishment of six centers on military installations across the United States. Previous centers were for addressing an "emergency influx of immigrants" or to support "the rapid development of new programs." These new FEMA centers are "to provide temporary housing, medical and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster."

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is to date the sole member of Congress willing to raise a public stink. "Apparently, the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough," blogged Rep. Paul. "Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, they now want to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency. With the phony debt-based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next."

Why, asks Paul, are these centers being constructed on military bases if they're not for the purpose of detaining large groups of people? Obama should explain what is going on.

Last fall, we learned who would be doing the rounding up when, for the first time since Reconstruction, U.S. troops were deployed within U.S. borders. The Third Infantry Division's 1st Combat Team, trained during multiple tours in Iraq, will "help with civil unrest and crowd control." According to Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, at least two more brigades will be deployed by 2010. The doctrine of posse comitatus, under which U.S. troops shall not be used against U.S. citizens, prohibits detaining us. Obama needs to explain why continuing this program is not a violation.


Comment: For more information on the deployment of U.S. Troops within U.S. borders:

Posse Comitatus Finis

Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"


In his inaugural address, Obama "rejected as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." His actions in the first month of his presidency appear to belie his rhetoric. The success of the Obama presidency will turn on the degree to which he can command the trust and respect of both the American people and the international community. If he shortchanges his pledge to return the country to lawful and constitutional government, achieving his greater goals may become impossible.

About the Authors

Lewis Seiler is president of Voice of the Environment. Dan Hamburg, a former member of Congress, is executive director.

 

[seek10]

Now, there's this:

Who Will Be There for Obusha When the Floor Drops Out?
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/176839-Who-Will-Be-There-for-Obusha-When-the-Floor-Drops-Out-

David Michael Green
The Regressive Antidote
Sat, 21 Feb 2009

it doesn't matter so much who goes in the cabinet, it matters who makes the decisions.
..

This sums up it all in all in one sentence and It is more or less in this reality when we were programmed to be complicit to give away power to few psychopaths for eternity. when 3D reality is archetypal to higher realms, continuation of bush doctrines makes Bush alive. Anyway, It doesn't matter whether Bush lives or dies to the people.

 

[Brewer]

Hi All

It could have happened

If this panned out as planned

_http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/tight-before-the-election-of-president-hussein-an-electronic-run-on-the-banks.html

Big run on the bank, economy collapsed, martial law declared, Bush president for life.

Future is variable and it doesn't matter which useful idiot happens to be in power anyway.

See you round

Brewer

 

[Woodsman]

Okay, I recognize that there have been some very sensible comments offered up in an effort to make sense of this little puzzle. So this post may go over like a lead balloon, however. . .

I thought, "Okay, what if? --What if the Sci-Fi explanation were actually true; that Bush had been killed and replaced by something else? --How could that kind of thing be verified?"

And when I thought that, I immediately recalled something which had been bothering me for the last few years. I remember all through his first term, Bush Jr. would regularly come out with these astonishing comments during interviews and press conferences; the term, "Bushism" was invented.

It seemed like every week or two, he'd dish out another monumentally weird comment. And when the study of psychopathy was coming into focus here on the SOTT pages, those early Bushisms readily offered themselves up as pristine examples of the kind of damaged language common among those psychopaths which had been captured and studied. --There was clearly something very wrong with the president. It became so bad that some people out there in Official Culture began to take notice. The talk began to grow beyond the simple notion of, "Oh, isn't that stupid?" to "Um, what if our president is suffering from actual brain damage?"

Then around 2005, something changed. I remember noticing that the steady stream of whopper-sized Bushisms seemed to dry up. --He still said some outlandish things, (as the list below will show), but the quality of those comments had shifted. I had this weird feeling about it all; I even remember thinking several times, "Hm! I guess they finally worked out a system to prevent him from making verbal flubs. Maybe the media has collectively agreed to stop reporting his blunders. Maybe his handlers started training him better before putting him in front of microphones. Whatever the case, something has definitely shifted!"

But that was just a feeling. --If I was going to be thinking about this in a more serious manner as we are here, then I needed to examine my odd notion more closely. So I spent an hour or so gathering up all the Bushisms I could find on those websites which collect them, and I've arranged them by date. --I left a couple out because they were un-dated, and I left out ones which were not blunders but were instead famous bald-faced lies which changed history. Those, I felt belonged in a different category. In any case, I think this is a fairly complete list of George Bush Jr.'s verbal blunders made from 2000 to 2008.

And then I read through them. . .

It's entirely possible to trick oneself, and I admit that I am not doing this in a very scientific way at all. It's not double-blinded, I had the theory in mind before I studied the evidence. This is basically like trying to work out if Asian astrology works by reading a bunch of Chinese place mats. BUT, when I read through them it DOES honestly seem to me that around the end of 2004, the kind of broken-ness of Bush's blunders really does seem different.

--They appear more forgiveable; like the kinds of honest verbal gaffs a normal, (albeit not very bright human who should never have been president), might make. --Things like number flubs, mistaken names, tripping up with awkward grammatical use, etc. But not frontal-lobe damage style broken. I've bolded the ones after Dec 2004 which I thought were truly truly catastrophic, but even they seemed like more logical errors. Saying "elevate" instead of "aleviate", for instance, is an error I can understand. --Whereas "coexisting peacefully with fish" is just. . , weird in a way I cannot follow back through any mind-maze I've ever wandered through myself. Anyway, I was only able to bold-face three examples.

Maybe he just got smarter. Maybe he changed his medication. Maybe the media simply eased up. Or who knows. --Maybe he was replaced by a more reliable model.

Or maybe I'm completely out to lunch. Please read and compare for yourself and see what you think; (I've divided the list in the middle where I think the shift occurs). . .

--Oh, and for the record, I'm actually quite partial to the notion that the C's see things in terms of probabilities, and that the stream of events simply changes course slightly as we move along it. That sits with me a lot more easily than the idea of a Bush-bot roaming about.

But still. . . When I read these quotes, something doesn't quite add up for me.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bushisms from 2000 - 2004



"You're working hard to put food on your family." —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000

"We ought to make the pie higher." —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000

"We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.'' —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000

"I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs." —President George W. Bush, Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is — I'm not sure 80 percent of the people get the death tax. I know this: 100 percent will get it if I'm the president." —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, third presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' —Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

"We both use Colgate toothpaste." —after a reporter asked what he had in common with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Camp David, Md., Feb. 23, 2001

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire." —radio address, Feb. 24, 2001

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." —Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right." —Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

"We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." —Washington, D.C. Oct. 4, 2001

"I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." —at a White House menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001

"But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me." —summing up his first year in office, three months after the 9/11 attacks, Washington, D.C., Dec. 20, 2001

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." —Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

"It is white." —after being asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001

"I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." —Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001

"Do you have blacks, too?" —to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." —as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." —Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." —at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002

"I try to go for longer runs, but it's tough around here at the White House on the outdoor track. It's sad that I can't run longer. It's one of the saddest things about the presidency." —interview with "Runners World," Aug. 2002

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

"People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." —Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002

"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?" —to economic advisers discussing a second round of tax cuts, as quoted by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 2002

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an army." —during a Dec. 2002 Oval Office meeting with Rep. Tom Lantos, as reported by the New York Times

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." —Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"I'm the master of low expectations." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It's pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" —President George W. Bush, joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet….I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
"Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

"The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." —explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

"Can we win? I don't think you can win it." —after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." —presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week — we will have an all-volunteer army!" —Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And After 2004. . .



"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —President George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —President George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

"It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth." —President George W. Bush, on an Amnesty International report on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." —President George W. Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his job performance, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake." --on his best moment in office, interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

"Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words." --interview with Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 1, 2006

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward

"I said I was looking for a book to read, Laura said you ought to try Camus. I also read three Shakespeares. ... I've got a eck-a-lec-tic reading list." --interview with NBC's Brian Williams, New Orleans, La., Aug. 29, 2006

"The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." --Greeley, Colo., Nov. 4, 2006

Maria Bartiromo: "I'm curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?"
President Bush: "Occasionally. One of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps. It's very interesting to see -- I've forgot the name of the program -- but you get the satellite, and you can -- like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes." --interview with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, Oct. 24, 2006

"See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s**t, and it's over." --chomping on a dinner roll while talking about the Middle East crisis with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the G8 summit, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 17, 2006

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." --Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

"I fully understand those who say you can't win this thing militarily. That's exactly what the United States military says, that you can't win this military." --on the need for political progress in Iraq, Washington, D.C., Oct. 17, 2007

"One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." --on military benefits, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit." --addressing Australian Prime Minister John Howard at the APEC Summit. Later, in the same speech: "As John Howard accurately noted when he went to thank the Austrian troops there last year..." --referring to Australian troops as "Austrian troops," Sept. 7, 2007

"My relationship with this good man is where I've been focused, and that's where my concentration is. And I don't regret any other aspect of it. And so I -- we filled a lot of space together." --on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007

"You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --to Queen Elizabeth, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2007

"The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm a Commander Guy." --deciding he is no longer just "The Decider," Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007

"Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets." --Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007

"There are some similarities, of course (between Iraq and Vietnam). Death is terrible." --Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured." --on the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2007

"Thank you, your Holiness. Awesome speech!" --to Pope Benedict after he spoke at the White House, Washington, D.C., April 15, 2008

"First of all, I don't see America having problems." --interview with Bob Costas at the 2008 Olympics, Beijing, China, Aug. 10, 2008

"I didn't grow up in the ocean -- as a matter of fact -- near the ocean -- I grew up in the desert. Therefore, it was a pleasant contrast to see the ocean. And I particularly like it when I'm fishing." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2008

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? ... That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." --at a news conference, Washington, D.C., Feb. 28, 2008

"And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq." --to Army Gen. Ray Odierno, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008

"You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." --ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008

"I reminded the president that I am reminded of the great talent of the -- of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House." --referring to White House chef Cristeta Comerford while meeting with Filipino President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Washington, D.C., June 24, 2008

"I think I was unprepared for war." –on the biggest regret of his presidency, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --in parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008

 

[adam7117]

Just finished reading Obama a Natural Born Citizen? Well Is He, or Isn't He? and now kind of wonder whether we're missing something here... What if Obama is not a natural born citizen? What if he is ineligible to become the president?

In such a scenario, what would really happen? The above article stops short of discussing that bit. If Obama was ineligible to run the country, does that mean Bush would legally be the president? Bush might not need to be a reanimated cyborg for this story to still be interesting...

 

[gwb1995]

Just finished reading Obama a Natural Born Citizen? Well Is He, or Isn't He? and now kind of wonder whether we're missing something here... What if Obama is not a natural born citizen? What if he is ineligible to become the president?

In such a scenario, what would really happen? The above article stops short of discussing that bit. If Obama was ineligible to run the country, does that mean Bush would legally be the president? Bush might not need to be a reanimated cyborg for this story to still be interesting...

In answer to your question, the only way for the President to be removed from office would be for him to be impeached. Since Obama has been sworn in as President and taken residence in the position, he could only be removed in this manner. In other words, he has been officially confirmed and accepted into his current position, and can only be removed from office in this manner.

Concerning your question about Bush still being president, the answer is NO. Bush has left the Office of President, and could not be brought back into power according to the constitution. If Obama were to be removed from office for the reasons you are asking about, or for any other reason via impeachment, the line of succession is clear. The Vice President would be in line to replace the former sitting President.

I hope this answers your questions.

gwb

 

[bltay]

Just finished reading Obama a Natural Born Citizen? Well Is He, or Isn't He? and now kind of wonder whether we're missing something here... What if Obama is not a natural born citizen? What if he is ineligible to become the president?

In such a scenario, what would really happen? The above article stops short of discussing that bit. If Obama was ineligible to run the country, does that mean Bush would legally be the president? Bush might not need to be a reanimated cyborg for this story to still be interesting...

In answer to your question, the only way for the President to be removed from office would be for him to be impeached. Since Obama has been sworn in as President and taken residence in the position, he could only be removed in this manner. In other words, he has been officially confirmed and accepted into his current position, and can only be removed from office in this manner.

Concerning your question about Bush still being president, the answer is NO. Bush has left the Office of President, and could not be brought back into power according to the constitution. If Obama were to be removed from office for the reasons you are asking about, or for any other reason via impeachment, the line of succession is clear. The Vice President would be in line to replace the former sitting President.

I hope this answers your questions.

gwb

gwb, I agree with you that Bush is out, his 2 terms are up and the constitutional 2 term limitation prevents him from ever being president again.

However, I do not understand, or perhaps I should say, I do not follow your line of reasoning about Obama having to be impeached to be removed from office if he is found to be ineligible to be president. In my opinion, impeachment applies to a president who was constitutionally/lawfully qualified to be president and lawfully elected to that position. If a legitimate president holds that office then the only way to remove him is through the impeachment process.

However, this is a unique situation, If Obama is not qualified to be president, then his election is void as if it never happened. He is not the president, regardless of how many votes he gets. The people have no authority to say he is president if he does not meet the legal qualifications, no matter how badly they want him to be president. His oath was taken under fraudulent pretenses, and is also void as a matter of law. Obama cannot claim ignorance of the law, because he claims to be a constitutional lawyer and knows full well what requirements he must meet to hold that office. Therefore, if found ineligible, Obama is not president; he cannot be impeached because he is not president. He can only be evicted (what irony that would be). He should also be criminally prosecuted for fraud if he is found to not be qualified because people tried long before the election to obtain proof of his citizenship, and he fought these attampts at every turn (why?). A $10 birth certificate would have saved him and the US citizens thousands of dollars in legal fees.

 

[gwb1995]

bltay,

I am certainly not an attorney, and do not claim to know the specifics of the law in this manner. My responses to adam7117 were based on the questions asked. You are asking about points of law that I do not have the answers to.

I will try to answer your questions as best I can. I will start with the fact that all documentation to qualify a person for President is supposed to be verified prior to acceptance of their application. If this information was fabricated or falsified, that would change everything. I do not know what the process would be, if this were in fact the case, when it applies to the current situation.

Now, consider the world we actually live in. The PTB are in total control and they decide who and who not is placed into power. Do you think that they would allow someone who could be removed from office for something along these lines to ever become President? The answer is yes, if that is what works for their future plans, and no, if they chose to not allow it to happen!

It all comes down to what they have planned for us and where Obama fits into those plans (osit). I don't think that the laws we are familiar with apply to those who are part of the plans of the PTB.

fwit,
gwb

 

[bltay]

bltay,

I am certainly not an attorney, and do not claim to know the specifics of the law in this manner. My responses to adam7117 were based on the questions asked. You are asking about points of law that I do not have the answers to.

I will try to answer your questions as best I can. I will start with the fact that all documentation to qualify a person for President is supposed to be verified prior to acceptance of their application. If this information was fabricated or falsified, that would change everything. I do not know what the process would be, if this were in fact the case, when it applies to the current situation.

Now, consider the world we actually live in. The PTB are in total control and they decide who and who not is placed into power. Do you think that they would allow someone who could be removed from office for something along these lines to ever become President? The answer is yes, if that is what works for their future plans, and no, if they chose to not allow it to happen!

It all comes down to what they have planned for us and where Obama fits into those plans (osit). I don't think that the laws we are familiar with apply to those who are part of the plans of the PTB.

fwit,
gwb

gwb, I could not agree more with you here. The PTB will put in power and remove from power as it suits them. Their problem is that Obama has free will, and although he may have promised to do certain things to achieve this lofty position, he could still possibly act contrary to the will of the PTB. This could get him removed if they deem it necessary.

However, publicly to maintain the illusion, (once again, my opinion) they will either assassinate him with some patsy, or use some other means to remove him. To maintain some sort of control over the chaos that could ensue, my opinion is that they could use legal channels such as this issue to remove him. I have been interested in this game since it first became public, and am interested in seeing how it plays out.

As a side note to your last statement, I agree with you that all public officials should present qualifications; however, from what I have been able to find, the rules as they stand now are that it has been left to the respective party committees to qualify their candidates and the states to qualify the candidates on their ballots. The DNC has refused to cooperate and provide any documentation that they properly qualified Obama. Likewise, several secretary of states have been asked to produce the documentation they have and none have produced. Some have even been sued unsuccessfully in court. Unsuccessfully in the sense that the courts have refused to require the documentation and have dismissed the suits. Why do they resist so strongly in providing this info?

I read recently that a congressman from Florida has introduced a bill to have the federal government require all candidates for federal office produce their legal qualifications. I was trying to find this article to reference it here but have been unsuccessful. I find it strange that we have gone this long without this federal requirement of elected officials at the federal level.

Found the article:

GOP congressman introduces birth certificate bill

POSTED March 16 2009 10:24 AM BY Amanda Carpenter


Freshman Republican Rep. Bill Posey of Florida has introduced a bill aimed at quelling persistent Internet rumors from the right-wing base of the GOP about President Obama's citizenship.

"Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president," Posey said in a statement. "This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for president, will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as president."

Several right-leaning outlets, such as WorldNetDaily and Newsmax, repeatedly have questioned Obama's citizenship. Posey's bill, H.R. 1503, would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

WND has chronicled several legal challenges filed by those who believe Obama may not be eligible under the Constitution to be president. Obama's supporters have dismissed them as "garbarge."

Last year, while these allegations were in full force, several outlets, including the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Kos, reprinted a copy of Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate to quiet allegations regarding Obama's citizenship.

_http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/Mar/16/gop-congressman-introduces-birth-certificate-bill/

 

[dant]

Well, to throw more confusion into the mix:

Bill Clinton was impeached... so why was he not evicted?

If I recall, Congress voted to symbolically to impeach Billy-Boy
as if to send a message of disapproval (slap on the hands that
got into the cookie jar), but not to evict him from office?

Ah, yes, even with an order of eviction from Congress, who
are the responsible forces to carry out the orders of Congress
if a President refuses leave (due to "inherent" rights or separation
clause of powers, or some other claims))? I am sure, there are more
scenarios to envision, but I wonder if there is a flowchart of all the
possible outcomes of case law regarding impeachment/eviction of
those in power?

So, (1) Congress creates laws (but not the President or Supreme Courts)
but apparently, this itself is muddied with (2) Presidential signing statements
(of "law", or "policies"), and further muddied with "interpretations of law" by
the (3) Supreme Court, this supposedly ensures that "checks and balances"
are guaranteed to work for the benefit of all normal people?

If (1), (2), and/or (3) of the powers fails in its responsibilities to be unbiased and
separate powers for the benefit of the (all) people, then the psychopaths win.
There is very little transparency in our government, so there is no possible way
to ensure that 1-3 are `responsible' servants of our government? In other words,
who is watching the fox?

FWIW,
Dan