He's the president, not a dictator

St. Cloud Times
Posted: Sep 7, 2006

Teddy Roosevelt said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American Public." I agree.

Every time people question this president or the actions of his administration they are deemed an obstructionist, or quickly accused of helping the enemy.

The problem is that we aren't quite sure these days which enemy we should be more fearful of - Islamic terrorists or an internal political faction that seems intent on dismantling our government and country from within?

We have a president who appears to think that our Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws somehow don't pertain to him and his policies. Issuing more than 750 signing statements, President Bush has effectively declared that he is not only above the law but able to establish laws that benefit only him so that he can do whatever he wants regardless of what the law says is legal.

I believe in any other country we would call this a dictatorship.

Executive privilege

Aside from a few grumblings here and there, not one of our elected officials has stood up to this administration on behalf of the American people to demand that this president cease the use of signing statements. Not one has moved to declare the signing statements as invalid because they are arbitrary to the law.

Citing executive privilege, Bush has:

» Entered into the Security and Prosperity Partnership that calls for the obliteration of our legal borders, a loss of our national sovereignty and the establishment of a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

» Implemented illegal NSA wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

» Sold our military ports to Dubai.

» Used the FBI to infiltrate dissident groups.

» Used data mining to compile dossiers on U.S. citizens.

» Retained for himself the right to use torture or extraordinary rendition to countries known for torture of those individuals who he deems as an "enemy combatant," otherwise known as prisoners of war.

Civil liberties

Any one of these actions should have resulted in impeachment charges as each of them represents an act of treason against the U.S. citizenry and the Constitution or at least a violation of international treaties.

Instead we have been saddled with a compliant Congress that has touted its lockstep image, and its rubber stamp approval of the illegal and unconstitutional actions of this administration.

Using the threat of terrorism, this administration attempts to strike down our right to free speech, to assemble peacefully and to live free of government intrusion.

For some, forfeiting our civil liberties provides some false sense of security. Too many respond that they aren't doing anything wrong so they don't care if the government spies on them or restricts their rights. I do.

Any time government leaders assign themselves additional powers, restrict the rights of citizens and actively begin collecting information on citizens, it isn't security that motivates them.

We have a president who openly advocates for a "New World Order," who refuses to abide by our laws if it doesn't suit his purposes, who has actively entered into agreements with other governments to end our sovereign republic and who led us into a war based on lies. Any one of these is grounds for impeachment.

In addition to impeachment, we can set term limits on both houses of Congress, get rid of the political action committees and limit the amount that can be spent on campaigns. Once we are rid of the "permanent Congress" that re-appears every election cycle, maybe we can get about the business of restoring our republic.