I am quite sure this diary will stir up debate and I welcome that - but lets try to be civil.
Until recently the result of winning the 2006 election had not really sunk into me. I did not realize how perilously close we were as a nation to becoming a dictatorship, or MONARCHY lead by Kings George and Dick. But make no mistake about it; this is still their principle desire so the need to be ever vigilant remains the top responsibility of every American against this constant threat. For example, with a 2008 election looming, every trick in the Bush/Cheney /Rove arsenal will be used to derail it from happening so that our "wartime Presidents" stay in power. And the result would be catastrophic.
More below the fold
Why do I say Kings (plural) Bush and Cheney? I take that que from Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo who put it best and I have included a link. In Cheney’s own words when asked how many employees he had.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).
What an answer! Sure looks like he sees himself as equal in stature to the President to me. Rest assuredly, that is not what the Constitution intended. And speaking of that here is a relevant flash back into American History on exactly what the Constitution intended for a President and how far a field this administration has come – and how dangerous it is for us mere mortals.
Perhaps many of you already know this, but at the time the colonies were lost from Great Britain and our freedom as Americans began, there was another King George. His name was King George III and ruled England at the time. He suffered from a rare disease, undiagnosed at the time that often led to wild ratings, and a seemingly constant state of confusion. Often he gave incomprehensible speeches from his throne donning a straight jacket. Over time his anger towards the colonist’s reluctance to submit to his whims and ever increasing demands on both their purses and allegiance to his rule led to the American Revolution. Yes, ironic indeed. And yes, I anticipate with relish the straight jacket comments.
Our Founding Fathers were a pretty smart bunch of people and reading both their intensions of the Constitution as well as their defense of it brings sharply into focus that we appear to be at the mercy of 2 Siamese twin dictators, or Monarchs, and that the time for a kind of revolution is here again. This one will be fought with vigilance, words, electing members to both the Senate and House and keeping them on their toes, ever mindful that the moment we become complacent, the very world is at stake. And at the center of the world are two criminals bent on personal glorification at any price.
From The Federalist Papers, below is a discussion by Hamilton or Jackson on the differences between a monarchy and a constitutionally led Republic. For those of you who might not know, these papers were written by Alexander Hamilton and/or James Madison under ghost names when trying to convince New York to become part of the Republic under the Constitution. Personally, I find them as enlightening as the Constitution itself. I apologize if these writings make this diary long but I think they are both inspiring and worth reading. Their foresight is chilling. Emphasis in bold – mine.
The Real Character of the Executive
from the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788
Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the sole processor of the power of making treaties.
The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church!
What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.
The past is our Present
It would appear that Bush and Cheney prefer the Monarch approach. This is in direct contradiction to why we fought a war with Britain and gained our independence. It is alarming to me, after reading this, that even in a Democratic controlled Senate and House, the misuse of justice continues in many forms including unauthorized torture, unauthorized wars,(goading Iran into one) warrant less spying on ordinary American citizens, and war profiteering – just to name but a few.
Co-Kings George and Cheney see our country through the prism of imperialists and will stop at nothing to achieve a permanent result including remaining in office.
The pen is mightier than the sword – as proved by Signing Statements
Currently, their principle means towards achieving their goal is through the abuse of signing statements. This is why it is of vital importance to read and stay up on the House Judiciary Committee, and the statements made this past week by Representative Conyers regarding starting an investigation into signing statement abuse. From Conyers statement:
Today we are holding our first oversight hearing in the Judiciary Committee of the 110th Congress.
Many have joined me in expressing concern about the growing abuse of power within the Executive Branch. This President has tried to take unto himself absolute authority on issues such as surveillance, privacy, torture, enemy combatants, and rendition. Today we are taking up the very important item of Presidential signing statements, which supposedly give him the power to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with Congress and signed into law.
All too often, the Administration has engaged in these practices under a veil of secrecy. This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate. And so, we announce that out of this oversight hearing we will today begin an investigation of the specific use and abuse of presidential signing statements.
Here is a link to his website http://www.house.gov/...
Conyers concludes with a statement so powerful that to not get the gravity of it is to not understand the true peril we are currently living through.
We are talking here about systematic, extra-constitutional conduct by the White House. That conduct threatens to deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any democracy – the right to elect representatives who determine what the law is, subject only to the President’s veto. That does not mean having a President sign those laws, but then say that he is free to carry them out or not, as only he sees fit</strongo</p>
strong>My friends and countrymen, we are in deeply troubled waters
For me there are other very troubling signs that nothing will stop this administration from seizing absolute power. I know to some it may sound completely irrational that I would question that a Presidential election could actually be stopped by the current administration when in over 2 centuries it has not occurred. I would put forth the following danger signs as reasons to stay extremely vigilant
(1) Creation of The Civilian Reserve Corp
Bush mentioned this in the SOTUS. Did you hear it? It was, so cleverly crafted- it almost seemed a benefit. But it is not .If Bush, Cheney and Erik Prince, the owner of Backwater USA, are successful, they will turn this country into as complete a dictatorship as ever seen,
Critical to maintaining control of a dictatorship is an army of loyalists. I am not saying that Backwater’s current 20,000 soldiers at the ready is sufficient an "army" as to render a real threat. But his economics being vastly less encumbered with the overhead our Armed Forces are saddled with make Backwater USA an economically far better alternative to increasing the number of our troops. The economics are better, but the result may be a severe curtailing of our most basic rights as American citizens.
Backwater USA or any of the other mercenary forces are not under the same obligation as our Armed Forces as stated in the Constitution. Our women and men in uniform serve and represent "the people".
From the Bush/Cheney perspective, this obligation could be seen as a threat – a threat that needs to be crippled and rendered useless as it could get in their way of transforming our constitutionally led republic into their monarchy. So what to do?, Stretching them too thin., inflicting many of them with life sustaining injuries – both physical and mental, as well as killing them is a good first start. Next on the list – I predict – will be arrests for terrorism of one or two of our own to send the message –. We own you and you do as we say even if that means "stand back".
On the other hand, by privatizing our army through a" third world’ like deal with the mercenaries working for Backwater. and others, Bush and Cheney have bought themselves an insurance policy that our legitimate armed forces will be rendered useless if ever there comes a time of civil disobedience. And yes they have a plan for that too.
(2) The result of attacking Iran will be catastrophic
Frightened that our lives are in danger of counter attack, frustrated and raging from years of purposeful neglect by this aministration, civil disobedience will rear its ugly head – and give Bush exactly what he is hoping for – a reason to declare MARTIAL LAW.
Katrina was a brilliant exercise is showing the American public what will happen TO YOU if our troops are not there to help you in an emergency. YOU MAY DIE, YOU WILL LIVE IN SQUALOR, YOU MAY BE RAPED, AND YOU WILL GO HUNGERY. Unfortunately many amongst us "will" welcome these troops with flowers. But they won’t be troops from the National Guard who stated this week that they are ill-equipped to handle any national emergency.
http://www.govexec.com/...
Instead those coming to our rescue will be from The Civilian Army operating under rules of engagement we are not privy to but most certainly will be instructed to put down civil disobedience by any means. And if you are arrested? That is too frightening to contemplate/
(3) It is under these circumstances that primaries to elect a new President would ordinarily be occurring
Now, do you think all of the effort to rest complete control of this country has been just to get voted out? No I don’t think so. If we remember the supposed terror threat of 2004, the administration under Homeland Security was very quick to put out the word that elections could be cancelled. I realize our congressional world is vastly different now. But with a broken army, a national guard who cannot protect us and mercenaries running the streets, what will stop him? Congressmen and women don’t carry stun grenades nor do they control vast inventories of means and methods to rest civil control. Our Commander in Chief does.
Again, I am not saying this will happen. The odds are against it, I AM saying that to avoid such a catastrophe we cannot afford to take our eye off these criminals for a moment for not for a moment are we yet safe. I will close with one more writing from the Federalist Papers. This is in response to challengers of the Constitution and brilliant in both its rebuttal and explanation one of the most critical principles of the Constitution - elected officials and term limits.
The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, February 19, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
THE THIRD charge against the House of Representatives is that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious, sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few. Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary.
Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government. The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.
The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government. The means relied on in this form of government for preventing their degeneracy are numerous and various. The most effectual one, is such a limitation of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people. Let me now ask what circumstance there is in the constitution of the House of Representatives that violates the principles of republican government, or favors the elevation of the few on the ruins of the many? Let me ask whether every circumstance is not, on the contrary, strictly conformable to these principles, and scrupulously impartial to the rights and pretensions of every class and description of citizens?
Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State. Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people. If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents.
I have to go out for a little while but first I want to thank those of you who take the time to read this and to all of the members of the Kos community who help me grow every day in every way
notimportant