End of Days?
A small radical minority has seized control of the United States government and, through felonious and corrupt machinations, all but ended democracy in this country.
That is not hyperbole or "unhinged" left-wing screeching. It is a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence that is just now starting to emerge. The question now facing Americans is this: are we willing to turn out the pretenders and usurpers? Or will we sheepishly allow the New Royals to continue their reign of terror?
If the scandal over the sacking of eight (or more) U.S. Attorneys has done nothing else, it has allowed some more perceptive observers to begin connecting dots and to start getting a glimpse of what has really happened to America since November of 2000. The always-astute Digby is keeping a watchful eye on the pattern that's emerging:
"Across the board, no matter what the issue, the Republicans actively sought to deny the Democrats anything they could call a victory. And the closer the Dems were to getting one, the more [Karl] Rove and his boys liked it. It made them look powerful to have the Democrats so frustrated and angry. But it also ensured that elections would stay close and intense ---- good for the base, keeps them involved, spending money and churning the culture war. (Even better for the Big Money boys to do their thing under the radar.)
"Still, Karl knew that wouldn't be enough. He needed to control the legal machinery to ensure that all these close elections he was engineering would fall his way. So he planted political operatives in the Justice Department and kept a close eye on anything that could affect elections."
{snip}
"Rove is not a stupid man. He knows that the GOP base is extreme and that when the great middle gets a clear look at them they recoil in horror. (See Circus, Schiavo.) He correctly deduced that to keep Republicans in power he had to permanently rig the system. So he did. And if it hadn't been for the war it might just have worked. The key to Rove's success was to keep elections close enough [so] they could steal them."
Electoral theft is but one advantage of putting the levers of justice in the hands of rabid Royalists. The Department of Justice is also an integral part of the national security establishment. It houses the FBI, of course. But more importantly, it monitors the domestic espionage activities of other agencies like the NSA. (This role has become much more clear since details of the shameful - and shameless-- "hospital putsch" episode came to light.) The department is also routinely churning out legal-sounding justifications for the regime's routine use of torture. In addition, it is the Justice Department that is staging terrorist show trials (not always successfully).
The perversion of the Justice Department is not an aberration. The same process has been underway at every other government office since January 20, 2001. The regime has seeded its loyalists throughout the federal apparatus. Their job is simple --make sure government works (when it works at all) only to benefit the King and his minions. Fortunes -- literal and political -- are being amassed in all Cabinet departments and at every alphabet soup agency. The fix is in for the next 19 months. And without concerted efforts by the anti-Royalists in Congress and true American patriots everywhere, nothing will change before January 20, 2009.
The question then arises: will it change even then? The system has been rigged so the Royalists can steal another close presidential election next year. That would allow them to pension off the current Boy King and install another usurper in his place - King John or King Rudy or King Fred. And business will proceed as usual. But sometimes, elections are not close and cannot be stolen without tipping the public off to the theft (see "2006 elections"). If the Royalists are routed at the polls in 2008, wll they give up all they have gained? Will they simply fold their circus tents and retreat to their ranches and ski lodges to count their booty?
I suspect not. The Royalists are not particularly bright , but they are clever and determined. If it appears likely they wll be unable to get away with thievery (again) in 2008, they may have a backup plan. The Dark Lord himself may have let a bit of that plan slip when he addressed cadets at West Point on May 26th. In his commencement speech, he told the new generation of military leaders:
"As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away. These are men who glorify murder and suicide. Their cruelty is not rebuked by human suffering, only fed by it. They have given themselves to an ideology that rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience, and demands that women be pushed to the margins of society. The terrorists are defined entirely by their hatreds, and they hate nothing more than the country you have volunteered to defend."
Commentators have noted that Cheney's derision of the Constitution (in particular) and the Geneva Convention seems to be at odds with his charge that the cadets defend "every belief" they consider "worth fighting for", including freedom and tolerance. But I think they miss the point. In the first place, Cheney is not celebrating the notions of freedom and tolerance, only pointing out that "the enemy" rejects them.
More importantly, however, Cheney is explicitly telling the West Pointers that the Constitutioonly applies to those with "delicate sensitivities". There's nothing in that old piece of parchment for real men of "upright character and conduct". No, the Constitution is for sissies, and he is assuring the Army of Tomorrow it need not concern itself with the niceties contained therein.
It would be an odd thing for the second-highest elected official of the Unitd States to say, if he considered the defense of our cherished political liberties to be the paramount mission of the military. The fact is, Cheney cares not a whit about political liberties, only political power, concentrated in his hands and those of like-minded Royalists. And his message at West Point was a clear signal to the military: their main charge is not protecting Americans or their liberties, it is to protect the regime. And it was met with obedient cheers from the cadets and those who trained them.
Cheney's West Point speech offers a small glimpse of that "backup plan", I fear. The U.S. military has been as thoroughly compromised as every other function of the federal government. It has been bent to the Royalist purpose, and is commanded by members of the Royalist cause. And come January 20, 2009, it can be counted upon to ensure that Royalists maintain their grip on power., no matter what those whose "delicate sensitivities" include a reverence for the Constitution have to say about it.
That is not hyperbole or "unhinged" left-wing screeching. It is a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence that is just now starting to emerge. The question now facing Americans is this: are we willing to turn out the pretenders and usurpers? Or will we sheepishly allow the New Royals to continue their reign of terror?
If the scandal over the sacking of eight (or more) U.S. Attorneys has done nothing else, it has allowed some more perceptive observers to begin connecting dots and to start getting a glimpse of what has really happened to America since November of 2000. The always-astute Digby is keeping a watchful eye on the pattern that's emerging:
"Across the board, no matter what the issue, the Republicans actively sought to deny the Democrats anything they could call a victory. And the closer the Dems were to getting one, the more [Karl] Rove and his boys liked it. It made them look powerful to have the Democrats so frustrated and angry. But it also ensured that elections would stay close and intense ---- good for the base, keeps them involved, spending money and churning the culture war. (Even better for the Big Money boys to do their thing under the radar.)
"Still, Karl knew that wouldn't be enough. He needed to control the legal machinery to ensure that all these close elections he was engineering would fall his way. So he planted political operatives in the Justice Department and kept a close eye on anything that could affect elections."
{snip}
"Rove is not a stupid man. He knows that the GOP base is extreme and that when the great middle gets a clear look at them they recoil in horror. (See Circus, Schiavo.) He correctly deduced that to keep Republicans in power he had to permanently rig the system. So he did. And if it hadn't been for the war it might just have worked. The key to Rove's success was to keep elections close enough [so] they could steal them."
Electoral theft is but one advantage of putting the levers of justice in the hands of rabid Royalists. The Department of Justice is also an integral part of the national security establishment. It houses the FBI, of course. But more importantly, it monitors the domestic espionage activities of other agencies like the NSA. (This role has become much more clear since details of the shameful - and shameless-- "hospital putsch" episode came to light.) The department is also routinely churning out legal-sounding justifications for the regime's routine use of torture. In addition, it is the Justice Department that is staging terrorist show trials (not always successfully).
The perversion of the Justice Department is not an aberration. The same process has been underway at every other government office since January 20, 2001. The regime has seeded its loyalists throughout the federal apparatus. Their job is simple --make sure government works (when it works at all) only to benefit the King and his minions. Fortunes -- literal and political -- are being amassed in all Cabinet departments and at every alphabet soup agency. The fix is in for the next 19 months. And without concerted efforts by the anti-Royalists in Congress and true American patriots everywhere, nothing will change before January 20, 2009.
The question then arises: will it change even then? The system has been rigged so the Royalists can steal another close presidential election next year. That would allow them to pension off the current Boy King and install another usurper in his place - King John or King Rudy or King Fred. And business will proceed as usual. But sometimes, elections are not close and cannot be stolen without tipping the public off to the theft (see "2006 elections"). If the Royalists are routed at the polls in 2008, wll they give up all they have gained? Will they simply fold their circus tents and retreat to their ranches and ski lodges to count their booty?
I suspect not. The Royalists are not particularly bright , but they are clever and determined. If it appears likely they wll be unable to get away with thievery (again) in 2008, they may have a backup plan. The Dark Lord himself may have let a bit of that plan slip when he addressed cadets at West Point on May 26th. In his commencement speech, he told the new generation of military leaders:
"As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away. These are men who glorify murder and suicide. Their cruelty is not rebuked by human suffering, only fed by it. They have given themselves to an ideology that rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience, and demands that women be pushed to the margins of society. The terrorists are defined entirely by their hatreds, and they hate nothing more than the country you have volunteered to defend."
Commentators have noted that Cheney's derision of the Constitution (in particular) and the Geneva Convention seems to be at odds with his charge that the cadets defend "every belief" they consider "worth fighting for", including freedom and tolerance. But I think they miss the point. In the first place, Cheney is not celebrating the notions of freedom and tolerance, only pointing out that "the enemy" rejects them.
More importantly, however, Cheney is explicitly telling the West Pointers that the Constitutioonly applies to those with "delicate sensitivities". There's nothing in that old piece of parchment for real men of "upright character and conduct". No, the Constitution is for sissies, and he is assuring the Army of Tomorrow it need not concern itself with the niceties contained therein.
It would be an odd thing for the second-highest elected official of the Unitd States to say, if he considered the defense of our cherished political liberties to be the paramount mission of the military. The fact is, Cheney cares not a whit about political liberties, only political power, concentrated in his hands and those of like-minded Royalists. And his message at West Point was a clear signal to the military: their main charge is not protecting Americans or their liberties, it is to protect the regime. And it was met with obedient cheers from the cadets and those who trained them.
Cheney's West Point speech offers a small glimpse of that "backup plan", I fear. The U.S. military has been as thoroughly compromised as every other function of the federal government. It has been bent to the Royalist purpose, and is commanded by members of the Royalist cause. And come January 20, 2009, it can be counted upon to ensure that Royalists maintain their grip on power., no matter what those whose "delicate sensitivities" include a reverence for the Constitution have to say about it.
posted by wally at 7:19 AM
0 comments
