***FReepers: Urge President Bush to VETO Shays-Meehan CFR Bill! !***

Sixty Second Activist ^ | March 22, 2002 | Sixty Second Activist

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"The law is probably unconstitutional and can be handled by the courts without making W the bad guy."

They (the Supreme Court) has still not handled the Brady Bill.
In my opinion, they won't handle this either.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"The law is probably unconstitutional and can be handled by the courts without making W the bad guy."

They (the Supreme Court) has still not handled the Brady Bill.
In my opinion, they won't handle this either.

[MeekOneGOP]

Why in the hell would you want Bush to veto this crummy legislation? Doing so would provide ammunition for the RATS in the fall election and the election of 2004. The law is probably unconstitutional and can be handled by the courts without making W the bad guy. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Well, for starters it is UNconstitutional. Since both the House and Senate don't seem to care about their Sworn Oath to uphold the constitution, someone has to do it. Remember, "The Buck Stops Here!", with the President.

Next, I understand your concern about politics, but if he would talk over the heads of The House and The Senate and explain to the American people WHY he is doing it and WHY it is UNconstitutional, they will understand. DESPITE what the DIMocRATS think, the majority of people are smart enough and won't swallow their swill - believe it or not. But Bush must talk to the folks.

If he DOESN'T veto this, do YOU trust the Supreme Court to shoot it down? What if they DON'T??? Guess what? We are scr****, FRiend!! You know what this bill is otherwise known as??....................

THE INCUMBENT PROTECTION BILL! !
Also, please see the letter that the American Conservative Union sent to President Bush on post #8. Thanks for you honest input, FRiend!

Oh, also check out this link to an article posted by Jim Robinson a couple of hours ago.......
Breaking the new anti-free speech law.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/652246/posts

[Arleigh]

Why in the hell would you want Bush to veto this crummy legislation?

Uh, maybe because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and Jorge took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?

To sign CFR and leave it to the Supreme Court to knock it down is intellectually dishonest. Besides, I don't think Jorge WANTS it defeated. He's an incumbent and a Washington insider, right? It benefits the RepublicRat incumbents just as much as the DemocRat incumbents. Maybe more, since Jorge's got the world's best political machine for raising hard money.

RepublicRats want to be able to run their campaigns without their base raising any pesky questions about no-win issues like immigration, guns, and abortion that turn off the Suburban Soccer Mommies.

[brat]

BTTT

[BulletBrasDotNet]

Thank you, Sir!

Personally, I thought that Mr. Cheney should have been the President of the United States of America. And Mr. Donald Rumsfeld should have held the number two spot as Veep. Their resumes as two military seasoned veterans would have been a "marriage made in heaven" for this country; given the Clinton era of draft dodging homosexual atttitudes with the Clinton/Gore era. Enough to make us sick when so many are feeding at the trough of America's Republic and free enterprise system of government.

My family and I are dis-heartened in what we see devloping here in America. My family's roots harken back to the late 1800's, when God, Prayer, Pledge Allegience to America's Flag meant something. Now DC is destroying our Country... Makes me sick as Hell!

[JDGreen123]

In reality Cheney is the President. Junior is just the salesman sent out to pitch the policies. Junior's a nice guy and good hearted. I think dear old Dad is probably the one still really calling the shots and he never has to stand for election again. At least he was honest with us when he told us he wanted a "New World Order."

I have kind of come to the point that I think the only choice we really have is between the Democrats who are in fact largely Communists and the Bushies who are quasi-fascists. I wish we had other choices but if those are the only two on the table, I think I will take my chances with the quasi-Fascists. I still believe "Better Dead than Red".

[davidosborne]

..Click here to sign PETITION....

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!! Be sure to urge President Bush to veto this unconstitutional CFR bill. Our very existence in our own communities as christians and conservatives could very well hinge on this or a an overrule by the SCOTUS.

[MeekOneGOP]

Signed!
265. Richard Meek
Do the RIGHT thing, President Bush! Thanks!

471 Total Signatures

[harpo11]

LOL!!! That is special for President Bush since the mainstream media gleefully gives him the razz for not being up to speed on pop culture, surely he would remember back when everything was groovey.

[harpo11]

Thank you MeeknMing. I like the poster on #32 too! Real manly looking Uncle Sam.

[Vigilantcitizen]

Signed and bumped!

[Valin]

In reality Cheney is the President. Junior is just the salesman sent out to pitch the policies. Junior's a nice guy and good hearted. I think dear old Dad is probably the one still really calling the shots

Riiiight. < /sarcasm>
How are things in blackhelicoppterland?

[KnotAcLue]

I know this may be a bit late but has anyone considered ads, flyers, posters etc. For example: 1. John McCain was a POW for XX years and wasn't allowed to express his opinion by his Veitnamese captors. Now McCain wants to do the same to the American public. CFR: the silencing of the American public. Are we going to stand for it? (List all that signed the bill) 2. Common pedestrians walking the streets with tape over their mouths and in the background fat cats (incumbents) smoking cigars rolling in cash laughing and pointing at the pedestrians. Well thats my two cents.

[arielb]

if it's unconstitutional then the Supreme Court will strike it down. That's what they are for. It may very well be constitutional

[mafree]

I signed it.

[davidosborne]

if it's unconstitutional then the Supreme Court will strike it down. That's what they are for. It may very well be constitutional

Your comment sounds like a political excuse... far better to VETO a CLEARLY unconstitutional violation of FREE SPEECH!!.. Give me a break.. Do you REALLY think its NOT a violation of free speech to PROHIBIT ads within 60 days of an election????... Most Americans don't pay ANY ATTENTION to politics until 60 days prior to an election..

Sign Pettion requesting VETO !!

David

[cake_crumb]

Action Item BUMP!

My message:

Please stand up for the First Amendment. We do not want Soviet style elections in this country. We need freedom of speech. Heck, a candidate might commit assault 30 days before a primary and the voters wouldn't know it, because reporting such news might be construed as "issue advocacy".

Please, defend and uphold the Constitution.

Please VETO the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. Thank you.

[floriduh voter]

Rah. Good letter in your post. I did Petition, Calling White House. BTTT.