Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’

Pls take a good look at this.

One wonders what his (Prez Bush) true motives are.


Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’
Dec 5, 2005, 07:53

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.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

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.

“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.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine “in the end ” if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“Oh, how I hate the phrase we have “a ‘living document,”� Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don’t have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it’s better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,”� Scalia warns. “Don’t think that it’s a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

BEWARE: Capitol Hill Blue is a BAD source

The Capitol Hill Blue guy supposedly admitted that he makes up stories, inlcuding quotes.

I removed that quote from my blog after I read that.

The "piece of paper" story cites unnamed senators, and so can't be verified.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Appreciate Your Feedback

Thanks for the Feedback.

I will try to check on this stories that Capitol Hill Blue makes up.

Do you have any specific references or proof?

Web Links etc?

By the way, what do you think of Prez Bush's Actions with Regards to the Constitution?


Domestic Wiretapping?




Domestic False Flag Terrorism???

The WMD's in IRAQ?

The uranium Fiasco?

Yellow Cake Niger?



Bush Versus the Constitution
By David Swanson

Last December, when Congressman John Conyers released a huge report documenting the evidence that Bush and Cheney had lied us into a war, he also introduced a bill (H. Res. 635) to start a preliminary investigation of the matter and make recommendations on impeachment. This showed far more courage, not to mention long hours of work, than any other member of Congress had mustered at that time or since. But it was disingenuous. Impeachment is itself an investigation; a preliminary investigation is redundant. And any investigation is unnecessary when the impeachable offenses are part of the public record.

Last week, Conyers released an expanded report, including new superfluous evidence of proven crimes related to the war, plus a lengthy Section 2 focused on illegal spying programs. The evidence of blatant criminality and threat to the Constitution in this new section is devastating. And the crimes have been confessed to. Bush has merely offered a series of completely implausible claims that his actions are legal, a series of claims carefully refuted in this report. So, the situation of last December has grown more extreme. Impeachable offenses are public knowledge, backed by overwhelming evidence and public confession. But, rather than introducing articles of impeachment, Congressman Conyers has backed off promoting H. Res. 635. Not a single co-sponsor has been added to that bill since Democratic "leader" Nancy Pelosi, some months back, ordered the Democrats in Congress to stay away from impeachment.



Bush Re-Authorizes Martial Law Provisions


The Prez's Actions sure seem an indicator of contempt for the constitution.

I hear Gonzalez's testimony couple of months back.

It seems his recollection is controlled by his commander in chief.

My premise is simple, any leader who swears an oath to uphold the constitution and DOES NOT
should be held accountable.

From the same website…....
Every time we publish a major story that puts some elected official in a bad light we get a chorus of boos from detractors who claim everything we publish is garbage and/or just a figment of an overactive imagination.

Oh, we still get raspberries from the lefties. They remember what we wrote about Clinton and we still go after Democrats who screw up. To partisans, anyone who doesn’t write from a politically-biased point of view is automatically suspect.
Often, when we check into who’s calling us what we find the questions come from an anonymous poster on a bulletin board or a partisan blogger who publishes under a nom de plume. They question both our use of anonymous sources and the credibility of those sources.

There is a laughable irony that comes from some keyboard commando who hides behind an anonymous “handle” criticizing us for publishing a story that uses anonymous sources.


Also see: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7787.shtml


I’ve been looking at CHB more and more lately, and so far as I can tell they are no more or less credible a source than any other. As a continuation of this topic I thought I’d drop off a link to a “rant” from the sites author, Doug Thompson…...
_Some 10 days ago, we reported that Bush, angry in a meeting where reauthorization of the Patriot Act was questioned, called the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

I agonized for some time over whether or not to go with that story. I had it from two sources but went to a third one for additional confirmation before running it. As usual, we have been castigated far and wide for printing the story based on three unnamed sources and for refusing to release the names of those who gave us the information.

But I don’t give a damn what these naysayers claim. I believe the story is true because I trust the people who gave me the information. I also believe the actions of the President this past weekend confirm the absolute contempt he holds for the Constitution. His arrogance in a televised interview with Jim Lehrer on Public TV and his speech Saturday declaring his intention to continue using the National Security Agency to spy on Americans clearly shows that he believes that he, as President, is above the Constitution, the laws of the land, or the people he was elected to serve.

I am truly ashamed that, as a one-time political operative, ever had anything to do with putting people like George W. Bush or his cronies in Congress into office._

Also see::


Bush and the Constitution
"Just a Goddamned Piece of Paper"

I don't know how credible this report is, of course, but let's suppose it's true. It has the ring of truth, it seems to me, given numerous earlier reports on the Commander-in-Chief's state of mind and penchant for profanity. (Capital Hill Blue has earlier noted his "short temper and tirades" during cabinet meetings. Thompson and Teresa Hampton, citing "a number of White House staffers" wrote in June 2004 that "[Bush] who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them 'fucking assholes' in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others." The Drudge Report has carried similar stories. The most recent Newsweek contains a report that Rice has to warn foreign diplomats, "Don't upset him" before meeting the Chief.) The man told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in 2003 that "God told me to smite [Saddam Hussein]. And I smote him." Why should a man who conducts such conversations care about a document which makes no reference to God?

Send me proof of deception from Capitol Hill Blue with regards to this.


This worse than urban legend has been shown to be completely and utterly false and without any merit what-so-ever.

And yet it keeps rearing its ugly head by the likes of those who proliferate and disseminate this crap.

It has no place here. (where its inclusion gives it merit by its presence — where others will see it and spread it around like the manure it is)

That said, I have no doubt that Bush might have said it and/or believes it to be true. But that's beside the point.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist


Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein