Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 7, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics



The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for our rights and essential for the success of our nation. The federal government was brought into existence by the people through our Constitution. Second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that controls the actions of our public officials in all three branches of the federal government. Every elected official swears to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution. The very foundations of Our Constitution are being violated by the highest elected officials in America and we are allowing this travesty to take place.

The most basic principal upon which the rights of our system are based is the Separation of Powers. This was intended to split and therefore limit the power of each of the three branches of our government. That principal, which was set out by our founding fathers, can not be violated if our government is to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Two powers granted to Congress and ONLY to Congress by our Constitution are the power to Declare War and the Power of the Budget. Both of these Congressional responsibilities have been usurped by President Bush. In the case of the budget, Bush has been allowed to establish his spending priorities and the Congress has in effect abdicated their responsibility to set the spending. The most recent example is the S-CHIP funding which Congress passed in a bipartisan vote. Bush has vetoed that decision by Congress which is an abuse of his veto power. If Congress does not override this veto Bush and NOT Congress, as the Constitution Requires, will set the spending policy of our country. Once the majority of Congress chooses a spending level, they have a responsibility to insure that it is established and must override any Presidential veto to insure their constitutional responsibility is met.

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. When Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution they delegated that Constitutional power to declare war to the President. There is NO provision in our Constitution to delegate that power to the President. When Congress passed this clearly unconstitutional law, a case should have been initiated to challenge that Iraq War Resolution. No such action was undertaken and the third branch of our government, our courts, was unable to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to insure Congress and the President do not act outside the Constitution.

In both these examples George W. Bush violated his oath of office. Every time Congress does not insure their decision on the budget is enacted they fail their responsibility. The Iraq war resolution is a failure of first Congress then Bush and finally by the fact that a case was not brought to the Federal Courts to challenge the Iraq war Resolution. Technically the Courts did not violate their constitutional responsibility because they can only exercise that power WHEN a case has been initiated. Thus the fact that no case was brought to challenge the action of Congress to delegate a power only Congress can exercise was because no American choose to challenge the resolution in court. I for one believe that such a suit should be brought today to make it clear for the future that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Congress DID NOT declare war against Iraq. On December 8, 1941 Congress did not say to President Roosevelt he had the power to declare war against Japan, Germany or Italy. Congress DECLARED WAR and that enabled President Roosevelt to act under his power as Commander-in-Chief. That is NOT what took place in Iraq. Bush acted as both the Congress and as Commander-in-Chief.

We need to STOP the destruction of our Constitution by the President or Congress. The first step in that quest is to tell Congress they and not Bush need to set the spending of the United States. The second action is to bring a case that challenges the Iraq War Resolution which continues today to be the authority by which Bush continues the Iraq War. There is no greater danger then to allow the President or Congress to violate our Constitution!

Comments (Page 5)
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Oct 09, 2007
So now your a seer, too. And still highly selective in your choice of "facts," conveniently ignoring all the other counties in all the other states where the vote in favor of Gore could have been disputed & perpetuating this myth that the ballot was the problem, as opposed to the voters too stupid to figure it out, not to mention the myth that you "know who would have won."

An election has rules, set in advance, to avoid manipulation by despots like you. Those rules were followed. You can't change them after the fact because you don't like the results. And I don't believe there was any legal basis for a "special election" just for President in Palm Beach County, whether you like it or not.
on Oct 09, 2007
Four Times in History


Three times in election history a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote—that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes, while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be president.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes.

In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election.
on Oct 09, 2007
I do not know but I bet it was not intended to confuse voters so Bush would win!


BLAME THE DEMS, COL...NOT THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I was a person in authority there's no damn way I would have let that fly.

While we're at it, let's stop living in the past, okay? Al Gore didn't even RUN in 2004, so the issue is now dead! And George Bush is not running in 2008, so you can't hurt his chances with this drivel!
on Oct 09, 2007
of the four al gore was the only cry baby
on Oct 09, 2007
By: danielost Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
“Four Times in History


Three times in election history a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote—that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes, while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be president.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes.

In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election.”

You have just proven my point. If the votes in Palm Beach County that were double punched had been counted, Gore not Bush would have won the electoral votes in Fl, as well as the popular vote, and would have won the 2000 election. You can not refit the fact that those 3,500 votes that WERE NOT COUNTED would have given Fl to Gore.
on Oct 09, 2007

You have just proven my point. If the votes in Palm Beach County that were double punched had been counted, Gore not Bush would have won the electoral votes in Fl, as well as the popular vote, and would have won the 2000 election. You can not refit the fact that those 3,500 votes that WERE NOT COUNTED would have given Fl to Gore.



remind me if i already told you this. it took 13 rule changes and 6 months before the vote came out the way al gore wanted it to.


on Oct 09, 2007
I do not know but I bet it was not intended to confuse voters so Bush would win!




so some democrat 4 years or more than bush even thought about running designed this ballet to confuse voters so bush would win.
on Oct 09, 2007
and again what about the 7000 people who didn't vote for bush in the other half of florida. because the media had already announced that florida had gone to gore.
on Oct 09, 2007
You have just proven my point. If the votes in Palm Beach County that were double punched had been counted, Gore not Bush would have won the electoral votes in Fl, as well as the popular vote, and would have won the 2000 election. You can not refit the fact that those 3,500 votes that WERE NOT COUNTED would have given Fl to Gore.


And you continue to prove my point about your blindered monomaniacal dementia, conveniently ignoring anything & everything else that might have affected the outcome of the election, not to mention that the election was conducted legally, certified by the proper state authorities & upheld by the Supreme Court, according to the dictates of that Constitution you cherish so much. The result of the election was Constitutionally valid - either the Constitution is to be "upheld" or it's not. Make up your freakin' mind. No, scratch that - you have no mind to make up.
on Oct 09, 2007
Reply By: danielost Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
and again what about the 7000 people who didn't vote for bush in the other half of florida. because the media had already announced that florida had gone to gore.


That was their choice. The 3,500 that DID vote were not counted and if they had been Bush would not have been president and this country would be a LOT better off today! Bush is a disaster. Take a look at Iraq today- No agreement between the three factions, attacks in many areas, the British are leaving and Bush wants to stay the Course. Look at the deficit, trade, immigration, Medicare etc. What an IDIOT we have as President! There is not one single thing that Bush has done that has helped our country or resolved the many issues that face us.
on Oct 09, 2007
The 3,500 that DID vote were not counted and if they had been Bush would not have been president and this country would be a LOT better off today! Bush is a disaster.



ok stupid which of these secret 3500 people were the ones whose votes didn't get counted. how do you contact those unknown 3500 people in a group of what 1 million or so.
on Oct 09, 2007
You can not refit the fact that those 3,500 votes that WERE NOT COUNTED would have given Fl to Gore.


Using your logic then we should have discounted all the proven cheating done by democrats causing Illinois to go for Mr. Bush. The same in other states that had proven cheating going on so Mr. Bush would have won with a 49 state landslide. Instead of oh wait he did get a 47 state win. The next election he got 49 out of 50 states. This does not look good for your argument does it?
on Oct 09, 2007
Which state didn't vote for Bush, Paladin?
on Oct 09, 2007
That was their choice. The 3,500 that DID vote

...chose to be stupid, that's what.

Bungling your vote is the same as not voting. Get over it. Come on, Gene - where's your devotion to the Constitution here?
on Oct 09, 2007
Reply By: danielost Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
“The 3,500 that DID vote were not counted and if they had been Bush would not have been president and this country would be a LOT better off today! Bush is a disaster.



ok stupid which of these secret 3500 people were the ones whose votes didn't get counted. how do you contact those unknown 3500 people in a group of what 1 million or so.”

The 3,500 people who completed ballots that were voided in Palm Beach County. They all voted and their votes for Gore were not counted. The precinct where these ballots were voided was composed of older democrats who were not voting for Bush! They were confused between Buchanan and Gore. There was no confusion with Bush who was the third name on the ballot. The confusion was between the top two positions—Buchanan and Gore. You are a real idiot! You and the other Bushies do not want to accept the truth. Bush became president because of mistake and he has been a mistake since he took office.
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last