CONVENTION SHOW STOPPER!

Just received the following in an email. ================================   June 12, 2008

CONVENTION SHOW STOPPER! Ron Paul: "Government Must Respond To Petitions for Redress"

Can the GOP delegates nominate a Presidential candidate who openly defies the Constitution?  There is a significant development unfolding that could very well become a "show stopper" for the Republicans expecting the nomination of John McCain to proceed smoothly in St. Paul at the GOP's upcoming national convention.  Normally, convention delegates would be expected to cast their vote for McCain because he received more votes than Ron Paul or Mitt Romney during the primaries and caucuses. Beyond this, Party rules require the votes be cast for McCain. However, the delegates are soon to face a new -- and very troubling and very public conundrum: What if there were a set of new, irrefutable facts regarding Senator McCain and Rep. Paul that would "stop the show" and bring forth the possibility of a convention upset? These startling facts would force the delegates to question their consciences, and put each of them on the horns of a practical and deep moral dilemma that will require them to search their souls for an answer to a VERY important question, "Can I cast my vote for a man who openly defies the Constitution?" Between now and the end of August, the delegates will learn that the voting record of John McCain puts him in the company of Alan Dershowitz, who has publicly stated that "The People have no unalienable Rights, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper and the Government should not be held accountable to the Constitution by the People." The delegates will learn that that candidate's voting record also puts him in the company of President Bush who was recently quoted saying, "The Constitution is just a God d***** piece of paper. The delegates will also learn that Senator McCain has cast his Senate votes squarely in cooperation with Rep. Henry Hyde who, as Chairman of the House Committee was responsible for the passage of the Iraq Resolution on October 2-3 of 2002 (five months before the invasion). During the Hearing, Hyde responded to committee member Ron Paul's stirring defense of the war powers clauses of the Constitution and Paul's opposition to the Resolution by slamming Paul and the Constitution, saying (quoting from the Hearing transcript), "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. There are things that are no longer relevant to a modern society- things that are inappropriate, anachronistic." On the other hand, the delegates will learn between now and August that the other candidate - Ron Paul, as a member of Congress has never cast a vote for legislation that was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that he believes the last ten words of the First Amendment guarantee the Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution. In fact, the delegates will learn, that candidate Paul publicly declared in 2001, "[T]he right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government." The delegates will learn that McCain: 1) violated the war powers clause of the Constitution by voting for the Iraq Resolution; 2) violated the money clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of Fiat money and the Federal Reserve System; 3) violated the privacy clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of the USA Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping and surveillance; 4) violated the tax clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of the enhancing the federal income tax system; 5) violated the Second Amendment by voting in favor of gun controls;  and 6) violated the general welfare clause of the Constitution by voting in favor of foreign aid and intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries. Very importantly, before the start of the convention in September, these two GOP candidates, as sitting members of the Congress of the United States, will be given a most public opportunity to declare their intentions as to their personal commitment to the Constitution. On June 30, 2008, the People will claim and exercise their Rights under the accountability clause of the First Amendment - they will Petition the Government for Redress of constitutional torts. Both Ron Paul and John McCain, President Bush, the Attorney General and every other member of the U.S. Congress will be served with seven comprehensive Petitions for Redress, one for each of seven violations of the Constitution by the federal Government. Based on the recorded responses of these Presidential candidates, the delegates to the convention will learn what the candidates personally believe about the roles and constitutionally guaranteed relationship between the People and their servant Government, including what each candidate truly believes regarding the essential principles of popular sovereignty and limited government.  Per the fundamental legal principle articulated in Section 61 of the Magna Carta in 1215, and subsequently articulated in 1774 in an official Act of the first Congress and in 1789 as the Accountability clause of the First Amendment, each Petition will state a Grievance and request a formal, specific Response, within forty days - i.e., by August 8th.  Each Petition for Redress contains a short series of pointed "Admit or Deny" type questions regarding U.S. law or policy. The questions are specifically designed to expose the Government's contempt for the Constitution. By exposing the open disdain that most of our elected leaders hold for the Constitution, the People can thus begin to resolve the conflict between the behavior of the Government and the requirements of the Constitution. We know Ron Paul will respond. He has previously declared his position publicly that the Government is inherently obligated by the First Amendment to Respond to Petitions for Redress. Click here http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ronpaul7-17-01.htm to read Ron Paul's statement which was read on July 17, 2001 at a Capitol Hill press conference with Bob Schulz during Bob's hunger fast to secure Redress for the first of the seven constitutional torts currently being addressed by the Petitions for Redress, i.e., the un-constitutional enforcement of direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor. We know it will be difficult for John McCain to respond given his largely unconstitutional voting record. We know what the delegates ought to do. As Americans, they should place the Constitution and its essential principles above the Party and its rules. As Americans first, their loyalties should flow to their Constitution before Party. Prayerfully, the delegates will be forced by conscience to cast their votes for the candidate who has earned the trust of the American People by living his oath to honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The time is at hand when those who support the vision of the Republic and Freedom espoused by Ron Paul will be able to move that vision forward by "bootstrapping" the exercise of Petitioning for Redress into a potent campaign issue, with the potential of altering the outcome of the convention by exposing those candidates who -- by their own record -- are incapable of honestly swearing the Presidential Oath of Office.

---

I say Brovo!!!

Three cheers for a real American Patriot!  Does this sound like a quitter?  Not!   It's time for someone to take the bull by the horns.  Sounds like it is about to happen...

I still want to see when and where Bush  said this about the Constituation. I cant find it anyplace.I am all for this action just hope it dont throw the Election to the Left. Obama is a threat to America. But it seems a lot of Americans  are willing to give up and let him have it. So please show me where Bush said this, Thanks

---

You don't see anything about because it never happened.  Just another urban legend created by libidiots and ronbots picked it up and ran with it.  And the story is hardly "recent" as stated above.  The story started over 2 years ago.  FactCheck.org: Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"

 

Q:

Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.

A:

Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories. The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably. We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers. The Quote The report was posted on Dec. 5, 2005. According to author, Doug Thompson, unnamed Republican leaders complained to Bush during a White House meeting about "onerous" portions of the USA Patriot Act, prompting the following: Capitol Hill Blue: “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!” The evidence There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no other news organization has reported him using them privately. Thompson based his report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the quote as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005. Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a similar story. But he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true. "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone interview. Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he finds their account credible: "Sometimes I just have to go with my gut, and my gut tells me he did say this." The unreliable gut Thompson's "gut" has proven to be a unreliable guide in the past, however. He has admitted quoting trusted sources in the past who later turned out to be frauds -- twice. In 2003 Thompson confessed that he had been "conned big time" by a source who claimed to be a former CIA contract consultant named Terrance J. Wilkinson. Thompson quoted this "source" as claiming to be present at two White House meetings in which Bush ignored intelligence officials' doubts about reports of Iraq seeking uranium. Thompson said he had been relying on the same man for two decades and had "no doubt" about his credibility, only to discover that "someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme." He erased a number of stories from the site that had been based on information from "Wilkinson" and deleted anonymous quotes given to him by "Wilkinson" from other stories. Thompson said then: "It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name." That was two years before the "piece of paper" quote attributed to three unnamed sources. But, far from demanding solid proof, Thompson continued to quote at least one more phony source until 2006, when a blogger started to question the existence of "George Harleigh." Thompson had for years quoted this supposed former Nixon and Bush appointee. But when no records of such a man could be found, Thompson admitted he had never even met him: Doug Thompson (July 26, 2006): We would get quotes via email on current topics. He claimed to be a retired political science professor from Southern Illinois University and an appointee of both the Nixon and Bush administration. I was told he had been checked out. But he wasn't who he said he was and we used his phony name in stories. This time Thompson says he revised or deleted 83 stories that had relied on information from "Harleigh" or quoted him. In his defense, Thompson says: "[The] 83 articles that we revised or removed represent less than 1 percent of the total production of this Web site over the past 13 years. While errors must never be condoned, a 99+ percent of accuracy is a percentage I can live with. " But we also note that Thompson described his own reporting habits this way: Doug Thompson (July 26, 2006): I started taking more chances with stories, jumping on ones with sketchy sources, always trying to outdo the last "big" story. I had people willing to help me and they would send me info that I used often on their word alone. . . . I wrote stories based on emails from sources I never met. I would meet self-proclaimed "important people" in out-of-the way bars, taking what they told me at face value. Washington is a breeding ground for phonies and wannabes. Too often I printed what they told me because I was so full of myself that I was sure it was true and did not require further verification. By Thompson's own account, these were the habits still in place when he reported the "piece of paper" quote in 2005. We also note that Thompson expresses extreme personal hostility toward Bush, calling him in one recent article a "madman," a "despot," and "a man without honor, a leader without conscience and a human being without a shred of decency or humanity." Thompson is a former Republican congressional aide and political consultant. He was manager of the National Association of Realtors political action committee for several years, ending in 1992. But his experience as a journalist prior to launching Capitol Hill Blue was limited to working as a local reporter at the Roanoke Times and a columnist at The Telegraph (Alton, Ill.), ending in 1981. He currently lives and works from his home near the town of Floyd in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, nearly 290 miles away from the White House. Good advice Capitol Hill Blue does offer one sound bit of advice, under the heading of "Just the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions):" Capitol Hill Blue: Should we believe what you print simply because you say it is so? Absolutely not. You should read many publications and draw your own conclusions. We agree with that. Even taking Thompson at his word, and dismissing the possibility that he just made up his quotes and sources, we conclude that the "piece of paper" quote is probably about as genuine as "George Harleigh" or the phony CIA "source" whom Thompson quoted in 2003. -Brooks Jackson

---

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

Capital Hill Blue/DOUG THOMPSON | December 9 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.

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.”

As Anneberg's Fact Check implies......Capitol Hill Blue????    Wonder why he doesn't (or can't) name these "three people".  Why haven't those three people come out on their own to confirm the story?  What a golden opportunity to publicly humiliate Bush!  But, thanks for proving it WAS NOT a recent statement.  2005???!!!!

---

 The article from Capitol Hill Blue is below.  I know nothing about its accuracy.

================================

Bush on the Constitution: A 'goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
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!"

This information comes from three West Wing sources who say a fourth White House employee in the meeting told them the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." That employee refused to return my phone calls but this kind of behavior is consistent with Bush's record on ignoring the Constitution when it suits his political purpose.

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.

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, 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 it's 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 - a record for any modern President, 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."

(Last updated on Dec. 29, 2007)

---

Bush actions speak what he thinks about constitution and citizens.

This so called quote is another "wish-it-to-be-true-from-Bush-haters", but, sorry, no lollipop -YET AGAIN.  (Kind of like the "whitey" remark from Michelle Obama, isn't it?)  Would certainly love only factual reports from EVERYONE so there'd be a lot less wasted time checking out the FICTION from the FACTS. Rhonda

You don't need a direct quote from bush, just read article 4 section 4 of the constitution and then count all the illegal aliens invading our country.

jmac1943 said: You don't need a direct quote from bush, just read article 4 section 4 of the constitution and then count all the illegal aliens invading our country.

 

jmac1943,

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Remember, Bush went to Mexico and promised the Mexican people that he would work with Senator Kennedy to get an amnesty bill through Congress.

---

I read this article when it was published the first time. The author said that he checked the reliablity of the statement by interviewing 2 others that were there. They confirmed that the statement was true, but under the condition that their names remain anonymous. Thompson admits to being conned by a source claiming to be at White House meetings about Iraq.

This was a meeting of staff members and Congressional leaders about the legality of certain provision in the Patriot Act. Because he had been criticized before, when he wrote this article, he said he confirmed the truth about what was said, although he could not reveal who reported it or who confirmed it. Remembering the bully boy mentality Bush had at the time, I believe it sounds resonable.

Thank you for the article txguy1.  I do hope it will happen. I pray that there are a majority of delegates that are fed up with bully tactics and are tired of seeing our Constitution trashed, that will decide to do something to rescue the Constitution and the Democratic Republic of the United States.

Actions Speak louder than words It is pretty clear what all those in Congress think----- They have their own agendas and it apperars that if the Constitution gets in they way, they ignor it. Look at the boarders, and alot of other things that Our "leader" do to suit themselves instead of what we demand. So wheather Bush said it or not doesn't matter he has proven over and over what he thinks

I choose to believe that those words came from Bush.His actions do and have spoken louder than words,just as he is forming his NAU against the will of the people that know about it!