It’s About A Lot More Than A
"Goddamned Piece of Paper"

Bush Remark Reiterates Arrogant Globalist/Neocon
"Crazies" Insane Lust For New World Order Prevalence And Power

Steve Watson | December 12 2005

“Last month, Republican
Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President
George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot
Act,” writes Doug
Thompson for Capitol Hill Blue. “GOP leaders told Bush
that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act
could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from
his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to
the Supreme Court.” Thompson reports the following exchange:

“I don’t give a goddamn,”
Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief.
Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting
said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine
the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my
face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned
piece of paper!”

“I’ve talked to three people present
for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of
the United States called the Constitution ‘a goddamned piece of
paper.’” Thompson comments

This is just the latest remark in a long history
of arrogant Neocon speak to highlight the fact that they have no respect
for America or its population. The fact that Bush's remarks were so
off the cuff yet viciously delivered reminds us of how and why the Neoconservative
clan, who were just getting a foothold during the first year of the
Regan administration, through their actions and incessant saber-rattling
garnered the nickname 'the crazies' by more moderate policy makers under
the first Bush presidency. Colin Powell, an establishment underling
through and through, would go one further, calling them "f***ing
crazies" during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

For the President of the United States to verbally
wipe the floor with the Constitution and curse it in the way Bush has
and it go virtually unreported serves as an indication of the threat
America is facing today from an Elite power structure that cares nothing
for the country it has usurped and is hell bent on centralizing power
globally and undermining the principles America was founded on.

The US is a Constitutional Republic, yet to Bush's
handlers, the globalist Neocons, that is not part of the agenda. In
an entirely Orwellian fashion they have attempted to change the meaning
of "Democracy" and adopt it as a form of governance to fit
their agenda. The word democracy originates from three Greek words meaning
"the people", "to rule," and the suffix ía;
the term therefore means "rule by the people" by which is
meant rule by the majority.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably
cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing
freedom of the individual or "Tyranny of the majority". For
example, James
Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over
a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. However,
at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions
and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy,
but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure.

So the word "democracy" refers solely
to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives
of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is a Republic.

The Neocons have adopted the word Democracy and
attached their world view to it. This as we have previously exposed
is a Straussian world view - after Leo
Strauss, who arrived in the US in 1938 and taught at several
major universities before his death in 1973.

Strauss was a German Jewish political philosopher
whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to representative democratic
government. Strauss, as revealed in a major New Yorker article by legendary
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, believed the world to be a place
where "isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from
hostile elements abroad", and where policy advisers may have to
deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to "protect"
their countries.



Shadia Drury, author of 1999's
Leo Strauss and the American Right, commented that Hersh was
correct on the second point but wrong on the first, insisting that "Strauss
was neither a liberal nor a democrat." She goes on to comment that
"Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical
because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them
what's good for them."

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies,
"some are fit to lead, and others to be led", according to
Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people
with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations
of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those
who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural
right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".

We have previously exposed how many major players
in the Bush Administration and leading Neoconservative think tanks are
followers of Strauss. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
Weekly Standard chief editor William Kristol, His father Irving, and
Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC). Also on the books of PNAC, prior to the
2000 election were Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as well
as former defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Other luminaries
included Jon Bolton, now Ambassador to the UN and Scooter Libby, soon
to be in Prison.

Also present was the darling of many Western academic
institutions Francis Fukuyama who's "End
of History" antics had gained him loving praise from the
Straussian Neocons and got him into the State Department. Fukuyama says
that we have reached “the end point of mankind’s ideological
evolution" and believes in "the universalization of western
liberal democracy as the final form of human government." This
is perfect for the Neocon Globalists because it means they can justify
"protecting" this "perfect" end point of mankind's
evolution and it's global spread at ANY cost. Fukuyama was a staple
of my International Relations MA 2 years ago and is so now in institutions
all over the Western world.

The PNAC way of thinking has been implemented
almost to the book since 9/11. Their flagship document, Rebuilding America's
Defenses noted that in order to go ahead with their strategy their would
have to be some kind of pivotal event that would unite the American
people behind the Government. This was referred to as "a new Pearl
Harbor" and came to pass on September 11 2001.

Leo Strauss was also a strong believer in the
"Realism" form of International Relations made prominent by
Thomas Hobbes.
Like Hobbes, he thought that human nature was intrinsically aggressive
and could be restrained only through a State formed via a powerful military
industrial complex . "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked,
he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can
only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only
be united against other people."

"Strauss thinks that a political order can
be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote
in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external
threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. This is what
Henry Kissinger was referring to in that often quoted statement he made
about creating external future threats in order to guard the world order
he wishes to see become more prevalent and powerful, the system we often
refer to as the "New World Order". Thus for the Neocons, when
the Soviet Empire weakened and a Unipolar world order was emerging,
a new threat had to be there lurking to allow them to further their
Straussian vision.

"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all
the time [to survive]," said Drury. "In that respect, it's
very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual
peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead
to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy", she added.

The BBC earlier this year aired a series of documentaries
that went some way to explaining the rise of the Neocon movement out
of Straussian Philosophy. It was entitled the Power
of Nightmares and concluded that the War On Terror is a
complete fraud and Al Qaeda is a largely manufactured threat as part
of the agenda to scare people into accepting the Neocon vision of the
New World Order. You can watch all three parts by clicking
here

This is how "crazy" the Neoconservative
view is. It is a deeply pessimistic world view and they are constantly
trying to make it a reality. They actually really believe that
life on this planet is simply about death, destruction and gaining total
Global Power over any other way of existence. In the early years of
the Regan Administration, before the term Neocon was even coined these
people were emerging. Witness Regan Pentagon adviser and former State
Department and National Security Council man Michael
Ledeen, who is quoted as saying : "Americans believe that
peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is
abnormal."

In an influential essay in the National Review
Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We
do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic
revolution."

All you have to do to predict where things are
headed next is read the documents and policy reports that they put out.
You don't even have to read into them if you don't want to. For example
Michael Ledeen's last book was entitled Time to Focus on Iran --
The Mother of Modern Terrorism.

These people are indeed "f***ing crazy".
They can see no other future for this planet than continual total complete
and unequivocal war and destruction in the name of "security"
for their own twisted beliefs and way of existence. The remarkable thing
is that they think they are the good guys and everyone else is evil.

"We're going to get criticized for being
an imperial power anyway, so you might as well make sure that the good
guys win." - Bill Kristol.

Now whether there are two warring factions of the New World Order in
the 21st Century is something to be considered. Many believe that the
Anglo-American Neocon Globalist vision differs from the older European
vision for a new world order which is one of more incremental steps
and an evolving globe of Nations under the control of a world government.
This is sometimes referred to rather loosely in many cases as Neo-Liberalism.

In any case both visions
are thinking beyond America or even sovereign state systems. They simply
have to work within state systems to begin with because that is the
way the world has evolved. Both visions overlap in various places and
yes they do have their spats, but the overlords, the higher uppers,
the Global Mafia as it were, the elite bankers and the policy foundations,
those who finance the power structures, do so with ultimately the same
goal in mind, they simply sometimes argue over how to get it done.

This becomes even more evident when you research
deeper into the roots of Neoconservatives like Irving Kristol and James
Burnham who were both strong admirers of Leon Trotsky. The Internationalist
movement under Trotsky is often thought to be at the opposite end of
the political scale to Neoconservativism, but when you expose the left/right
political scale as a falsity, a cover for a higher elite level of globalism,
the walls come crumbling down.

The Trotsky / Neocon links are further exposed
in a 2003 National Post article entitled Trotsky's
ghost wandering the White House. There is no doubt that
the links exist, and furthermore they highlight the false left right
paradigm by showing that so called Trotskyites can just as easily switch
to Neoconservativism should the moment in world politics be right. They
will use whichever end of the scale they believe is more likely to help
them advance their quest for power.

As quoted in the afore mentioned article, Researcher
Christopher Phelps rightly points out, that the circuitous route from
Trotsky to Bush is "more a matter of rupture and abandonment of
the left than continuity."

Of course, the rise of the Neocon cabal and the
trashing of the constitution has not come without overarching help along
the way from a gigantic propaganda machine. There has arisen a faction
of media Neocons who are now also knowingly or unknowingly following
the Straussian philosophical vision.

The Murdoch empire is a nice little Goebbels factory
that attempts to churn out the same rhetoric as the Neocons until the
general public actually believe it to be reality. Fox "News"
is not actually news, it is Opinion on the world. This New
York Times Article hits the nail on the head when writer Ron
Suskind relates an encounter he had with a senior Bush aide in 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were "in
what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as
people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study
of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about
enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's
not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're
an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act
again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all
of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Creating false realities that fit the power structure's
preconceived agenda is completely Straussian. The bad news for us is
it's also completely Orwellian. In Nineteen Eighty Four George
Orwell warned us of where this would lead if we allowed it to happen
- and we know it's not pretty.

As Bush has been told (and has repeated) "You
Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda"
In other words, if you throw enough BS, some of it is going to stick,
and that's what Mr Murdooch's job is.

Of course there are also the Murdoch underlings
and wannabe's who are the useful Neocon mouthpieces. Limbaugh, Hannity
and O'reilly like to tell people to shut up and accept that torture
is no big deal and war based on lies is acceptable if it is for the
good of America.

Bill Kristol gets to go on Fox and tell us what's
really going on everyday, whilst Ann Coulter likes to call For North
Korea To Be
"Nuked For Fun,".

And then you have Clear Channel who own the voting
machines and put up giant Billboards telling us that George W Bush is
"OUR LEADER".

But after all, what's the big deal about Bush trashing the Constitution?
Fox News didn't report it, that means it didn't happen, doesn't it?

Besides, I thought that if you defend the Constitution,
you were now considered a terrorist? That's what this FBI
Joint Terrorism Task Force brochure says anyway. Defenders of
the US Constitution and the common law from which it grew are being
classified on the same level as Nazis and the KKK.

Therefore George Bush was right to say “It’s
just a goddamned piece of paper!”, otherwise he's a terrorist.

http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm

Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!