Appropriate That Bush's Speech Was From The Abraham Lincoln
From MediaMike
How appropriate that the speech by George W. Bush was given on the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln"! You see, Lincoln was another President who egregiously violated the Constitution and ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent women and children, but was rescued by the re-writing of history to remove the facts and replace them with fictional rhetoric. http://www.patriotist.com/abarch/ab20020204.htm http://www.fvp.info/reallincoln/Reviews.html
The similarities between this administration, and that of the rise of the Third Reich are well documented (and uncanny), http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ed060602-2.shtml http://www.arena.org.nz/4threich.htm http://www.algore04.com/pipermail/goregroup/2002-October/006970.html but how about those of this President and former President Abraham Lincoln?
Lincoln was aided by England in order to destroy the South. Bush was aided by England to destroy Iraq.
Orders from Lincoln killed women and children indiscriminately leaving burning buildings and charred bodies. Orders from Bush killed women and children indiscriminately leaving burning buildings and charred bodies.
Lincoln took over the media and forbade any debate over the rights of the States. Bush took over the media (clearchannel radio and the major TV networks) whom all but shot anyone trying to make clear the fact that this war violates Article I section 8 of the Constitution. Especially irritating are Rush Limbaugh's "politics of personal destruction" he so lamented about when performed by the Clintons, yet is so quick to do to himself as he insults anyone whom brings forth the fact that this war is constitutionally unlawful.
Lincoln declared war against innocent Americans outside the limits of the Constitution. Bush declared war against an innocent foreign people outside the limits of the Constitution.
Lincoln changed the published reasons of war against the South from States' Rights to "uniting the country" to freeing the slaves. Bush changed the published reasons of war against Iraq from finding weapons of mass destruction (none found to date) to that of killing Saddam Hussein (still not found) to that of "liberating the Iraqi people."
Lincoln surrounded himself with military minds whom had no problem carrying out orders that violated their respective oaths of office. Bush surrounded himself with military minds that surrounded his daddy, the US director of the "New World Order." Their motto is "What oath?"
This is where the similarities end, however. There are many differences between these Presidents:
Lincoln wrote his own speeches with eloquence and succinction. The word "nuclear" had no military meaning. Bush can't pronounce "eloquence" or "succinction" let alone "nuclear".
Lincoln didn't fly an airplane because they hadn't been invented yet. Bush didn't fly the fighter he was transported on last Thursday because he was AWOL for most of that training. (Hard to fly when seeing double.)
oln was elected by the electors of the country per the Constitution's directives. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court.
It took almost 150 years for the truth to come out about Lincoln's violations of the Constitution in his war that killed the country. It took less than 150 days for reams of pages to appear on the internet which prove Bush's complicity in 9/11, his illegal attack on Afghanistan, and his murderous violations of right and wrong in his unilateral terrorist action on Iraq. (Even the Pope says Bush should be on trial for war crimes.)
I'm sure we can expect more well-rehearsed speeches from this President, and more grandiose presentations surrounding same. After all, since it is this President who claims that, "It's the executive branch's job to interpret law", who are we to point out that his actions violate the Supreme Law of the Land, and his oath of office?
In Liberty (and the restoration of a Constitutional government)
MediaMike,
Phoenix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------