Fascism: are we there yet?
AntiWar.Com
by Justin Raimondo
05/15/06
What is significant about this new revelation is the way the White House is spinning it: they claim it's all perfectly legal, because the president -- according to their creative interpretation of the Constitution -- has the 'inherent' authority to create such a database. Congress may object, but it isn't up to them -- it's up to 'the decider,' as Dubya has recently begun referring to Himself. Instead of a president, we now have a decider in chief, who combines the qualities of a chief executive, a military chieftain, and a king. Not a modern monarch, all of whom are merely symbolic reminders of fallen empires, but a king of old, who could dismiss Parliament and rule by decree...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8992
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
by Justin Raimondo
05/15/06
What is significant about this new revelation is the way the White House is spinning it: they claim it's all perfectly legal, because the president -- according to their creative interpretation of the Constitution -- has the 'inherent' authority to create such a database. Congress may object, but it isn't up to them -- it's up to 'the decider,' as Dubya has recently begun referring to Himself. Instead of a president, we now have a decider in chief, who combines the qualities of a chief executive, a military chieftain, and a king. Not a modern monarch, all of whom are merely symbolic reminders of fallen empires, but a king of old, who could dismiss Parliament and rule by decree...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8992
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
rudkla - 15. Mai, 18:34
