Dethrone King George

Five Years Later, War Is Over (If You Want It)

2011-12-28T16:46:00.000-08:00

The holiday season has long left a haunting aftertaste in my memory. I first remarked upon it in something I wrote five years ago this week. And half a decade later, it's still there.

It all begins 40 years ago, with a song. This is how I described it in 2006:

This holiday season has been haunted by a melody. John Lennon and Yoko Ono originally released "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" just before Christmas in 1971, at a time when the Vietnam War seemed likely never to end. Re-released in 1972, the record resonated with war-weary Americans who wanted the fighting to end. By then, the My Lai Massacre court martial and the Pentagon Papers had seeped into the public consciousness. Most Americans knew the war had to end, and end soon. Opinion polls showed support for the Vietnam War dropping to about 30% by mid-1971. That lack of support did not translate quickly into government action, though, since Congress wouldn't cut off funding for Vietnam combat operations until December 1974 (three years after "Happy Xmas" debuted).
Hearing the refrain "War is over/If you want it" wafting from the car radio in recent days has produced the same sort of melancholy it did on first hearing 35 years ago. I found myself pleading with John. "I want it," I cried. "I want it over! Tell me how!"

If you don't remember 1971, it's difficult to describe the gestalt of the times. Vietnam was not only a never ending horror, it was a never changing horror. Day after day, the carnage was reduced to recitations of "body counts" -- the number of dead on each side of the conflict, a statistical exercise that was as demeaning as it was deceptive. Into this atmosphere, Lennon's plaintive carol seemed to be a breath of fresh air. It was so simple -- war is over, if you want it. Millions of us wanted it. But the war did not end. It dragged on for years after "Happy Xmas" was released.

Five years ago, I was gripped by a similar melancholy. Another war seemed to be dragging on endlessly, and no matter what people of good will said or thought or did, there was no conclusion to it in sight. It was the war in Iraq, which the United States chose to start and had chosen not to stop. In fact, that year -- 2006 -- during the holiday season the United States decided to send even more troops to the quagmire. It seemed very much like 1971 all over again.

Today, almost unbelievably, that war is over. Far too late, and with far too much blood spilled and far too much money poured into the sand, the United States is no longer fighting a war in Iraq. U.S. troops are out of the country. What happens there now is the business of the Iraqis, not the U.S. government. That is as it should be -- and should have been all along. But even so late, it is welcome. Even five years after my desperate plea of "Tell me how!", I am gratified that no more Iraqi or American lives will be taken in my name and the name of my people. (Yes, there's still a war in Afghanistan, and yes, it's been dragging on far too long, but it seems there may be an end in sight for that one, too.)

Today, that song on the radio seems a little less wistful. The Iraq war is over. Yes, it went on too long and the cost was obscenely dear. But it's over now. It's over because people of good will wanted it to be. John Lennon was right all along.

Happy Christmas (War Is Over)!

"Commemoration, Not Celebration"

2010-12-20T19:42:00.000-08:00

In the hustle and rush of the holidays, perhaps you've missed a little event taking place in Columbia, South Carolina. The city is marking the 150th anniversary of what appears to be the most significant event in that city's (and state's) history: the signing of the "Ordinance of Secession". The festivites include the mayor unveiling a historical marker on the site of the building where the event occurred, and a complete historical re-enactment of South Carolina's declaration that it was willing to destroy the United States in order to protect the institution of slavery.

I'm not sure who is more condescending: the "officials" who "were careful to call the sesquicentennial of secession "a commemoration and not a celebration" or the "Commander" of the state's Sons of Confederate Veterans, who insists, "We've always extended a hand of friendship [to] our black brothers and sisters we know..."

A "commemoration"? What's to commemorate? The men who signed the Ordinance of Secession in South Carolina 150 years ago did nothing worthy of a memorial. What they did was worthy of a hangman's noose. They proclaimed themselves proud enemies of the United States. And their deeds matched their words four months later when they turned cannons on the U.S. Army and fired the first shots of the Civil War. For that, they get a plaque? For that, they get a stage play in their honor?

That's not how Americans traditionally regard their sworn enemies. Even those who were, once, considered loyal Americans. Consider for a moment the monument to the commanders of the patriot forces at the Battle of Saratoga.

It has niches facing the four cardinal points of the compass. Each one commemorates (there's that word again) one of the four commanders of the Continental Army forces that battled the British at Saratoga. Three of the niches contain statues of Generals Gates, Schuyler and Morgan. The fourth commander was Benedict Arnold. His niche is empty.

That's as it should be. After Saratoga, Arnold sulked over his perceived slights at the hands of the Continental Congress. So he sold out America. He sided with the Crown, tried to betray his former command at West Point, and ended up hightailing it to England, where he collected his 30 pieces of silver. For that, he is erased from any "commemoration" of the Revolutionary War. As well he should be.

Perhaps South Carolina (and the other states that joined its treason) will erect a plaque to Benedict Arnold, too. It's only fitting.

A Coup

2007-10-28T08:14:00.000-07:00

The Royalists are becoming either more bold, or more reckless. They are exposing more and more of their utter contempt for American values and ideals, and seem to be daring anyone to call them on it. Now, the Boy King and his minions are displaying what I had long considered to be their trump card -- the one they would keep hidden until after the results of the 2008 elections are known. They are using the military to intimidate the opposition. And, of course, it's working.

Just ask MoveOn.org.

The Royalists are also using the military to plant news stories with cozy media outlets, particularly sympathetic bloggers. And they've even gone so far as to sic a top aide to General Petraeus (one Col. Steven Boylan) on a blogger who has challenged their arrogance, Glenn Greenwald. In a particularly vitriolic email, the Petraeus flack accuses Greenwald of bad journalism, bad lawyering and bad faith. Of course, none of those accusations holds up under scrutiny, and Greenwald concludes:

"Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective."

Greenwald further notes that the offending email is part of an increasingly obvious campaign by the military to prop up the Royalist cause and to besmirch any opponent to their Grand Glorious War in Iraq. (He has links in the post.) Then he delivers the coup degrace:

"The linchpin of a republic under civilian rule -- as well as faith in the armed services by a cross-section of Americans -- is an apolitical military. Like all other branches of the government intended to be apolitical, this linchpin is eroding under this administration, and that ought to be of far greater concern to Boylan and Petraeus than hurling petty insults."

What Greenwald doesn't say -- and what perhaps many anti-Royalists are afraid to say -- is this: the United States is no longer "a republic under civilian rule". We have not been a republic since December 12, 2000, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that military power will be employed to keep the current regime in power (with or without a certain cretin named Bush at its head).

It is especially bold for a career militry man to pick a political fight with a blogger. It says, to me at any rate, that the thin veneer of civil government that masked all the previous misdeeds of this government has finally cracked, and we are getting our first look at what lies beneath. And, taken in that context, the recent conduct of the Iraq War may fall into place.

Let's review: when the Clown-in-Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq, there was no thought that Iraqis would be anything but grateful for their "liberation". The almost immediate civilian armed opposition to U.S. occupation was dismissed as the work of "dead-enders" and, even long afterward, was characterized as in its "last throes". Then, suddenly, it's an insurgency, a well-oiled terrorist machine financed abroad (guess where ) that must be crushed with a "surge" of troops. "Counter-insurgency" is the new buzzword, and the new mission (one never envisioned by the Congressional authorization of the Iraq War). What change occured in the fall of 2006 that might spur this sudden interest in fighting insurgents?

The evidence is there for anyone who really wants to see it. The Army isn't fighting the insurgency in Iraq to protect the government there. It's fighting insurgents in Iraq for practice. The Pentagon apparently feels it needs some hardened front line troops who know how to root out and kill anti-government militants, in both urban and rural setttings. The Bushites may not have had a clue about would happen once they unleashed their pet theories on Iraq, but I think they have a pretty good idea what they can expect when they bring those theories back home.

Sometime on or before January 20, 2009, we'll all find out what the "surge" was really about.

End of Days?

2007-06-02T07:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Falwell's America

2007-05-15T18:32:00.000-07:00

In recent months, there has been an interesting and vigorous debate in Left Blogistan about how best to deal with issues of faith in the context of politics. The indispensible Atrios spent a week batting the issue around, and kept returning to a simple conclusion:

"We believe different stuff. Especially to the extent that people want to keep shoving personal religion out into our political sphere, it's important [to] examine those differences. And if we examine those differences, we're entitled to make decisions based on them. Otherwise, the implication is that someone's religious beliefs say something incredibly important about them, but we're not actually supposed to talk about exactly what that is."

Herein lies the fundamental error in basing political decisions on religious principles: whose religion gets to be the deciding factor in a debate? "We believe different stuff." Some of us adhere to a faith that requires a sacrament of ritual human sacrifice. Some of us adhere to a faith that requires actual sacrifice of live animals. Some of us adhere to no faith at all. When we're trying to determine what national policy on , say, torture should be, whose argument carries the most weight? The person who believes any violence against a human is an abomination? Or the person who believes that the infliction of severe physical pain is an express ticket to paradise?

These are not rhetorical questions. There is an answer, and a simple one. It's found the in First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And the answer is:

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

The Framers were quite explicit: government shall not adhere to any given religion, nor prevent the American people from freely excercising their religious beliefs. All of the people, and any beliefs. That was a shocking notion in 1787. After all, virtually every government on the planet drew its legitimacy from its claim to providential design. Kings got their crowns from the clergy, not the people they governed. The genius of the First Amendment is that is severes the umbilical between our government and any god.

The notion is still shocking to much of Planet Earth. Try telling the Emir of Kuwait and the President of Iran and the Queen of England that their stations are not endowed upon them by the Almighty -- then duck.

Which brings us, of course, to Jerry Falwell. The airwaves are bloated with eulogies for the late minister. "He had no hate in him," says Paul Weyrich, who has been the radical right wing's bagman for a generation. "He was one of the kindest people I ever met." Weyrich (who coined the term "Moral Majority") admits, "He was controversial. He sort of enjoyed tickling the opposition."

"No hate", you say? When Falwell said, “I do not believe that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew” he wasn't expressing hate? When he said, days after the September 11th attacks, "I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen’", he was "tickling the opposition"? When he bankrolled a scurrilous attack video that accused the President of the United States of murder, he was being kind? (The Carpetbagger Report has a long list of Falwell's less-than-Christian moments that documents his pattern of lies, insults, bigotry and theft.)

More importantly, Falwell saw himself as a "kingmaker." Six weeks before the 2004 election, he made that painfully plain:

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election."

A few weeks earlier, he went even further:

"I would gauge my support for George W. Bush right along side Ronald Reagan among one of the most endeared men among evangelical Christians in modern history."

There it is. Falwell saw Bush as the re-incarnation of Reagan, whom he described as his "hero":

"I will remember Mr. Reagan primarily for his relationship with the evangelical Christian values of our Founders."

Falwell was careful not to say Reagan was an "adherent" of those "evangelical Christian values", since the sainted Ronnie was anything but a saint. But Falwell's assertion that "our Founders" held those "evangelical Christian values" deserves some attention.

Falwell, and other conservative religionists, have consistently claimed that the United States is, and always has been, "a Christian nation". They usually base that claim on the fact that most of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were devoutly religious. That means, of course, they were evangelical Christians.

They were not.

This lie is one of the most pervasive in American politics. Among the 56 signatories to the Declaration, more than half were Anglicans -- members of the Church of England, hardly a hotbed of evangelical fervor. More than 40% of them were either Congregationalists or Presbyterians (two very closely related mainline denominations). The rest were Quakers (who do not ascribe to traditional Christian dogma), Catholics or Unitarians (who are not Christians at all, much less evangelicals).

The religious affiliations of delegates to the Constitutional Convention were roughly the same, with a smattering of Methodists, Lutherans and Dutch Reformed Church members sprinkled in. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone among those two august assemblages of Founders whose political and religious beliefs even vaguely resembled Falwell's. Or Reagan's.

Indeed, the leader who most embodies the religious and political convictions of Jerry Falwell might be Oliver Cromwell, who demonstrated his loyalty to his country by killing its king and installing himself as a dictator, imposing his own faith forcibly upon the population (torturing or killing anyone who refused to convert). That's Falwell's kind of leader.

That, in fact, is precisely the kind of leader all religious conservatives crave -- a bold and murderous moralist who will brook no dissent on issues of policy or faith. Their only quibble with Cromwell would be his refusal to wear the crown. For the one trait the unites Falwell, the religious right at large, and the current regime occupying the White House, the Supreme Court and a large minority of the members of Congress, is their undying devotion to the ideal of an American Empire. They have no use for the United States, with its quaint rule of law and enshrinement of individual liberty as sovereign over government power.

As his comments above suggest, Falwell saw George W. Bush as more than a president. He sees him as the embodiment of his vision for an Imperial America, ordained by his God to reign over this country. He didn't see the same sniveling, cowardly gunsel the rest of the world sees. No, he saw another Reagan. Or maybe he saw Bush as a latter-day Charlemagne. No doubt, he saw himself as Bush's Pope Leo, crown in his own hands, poised to grant a divine blessing on the new American Imperium.

Jerry Falwell may be gone, but his vision for America remains very much alive.

An Apple Is Not an Orange

2007-03-05T20:09:00.000-08:00

Conservatives are liars. There is little doubt of that anymore (if there ever was). Every once in a while, though, some Royalist will allow a bit of truth to slip out - usually unintentionally, and only when surrounded by like minded zealots. So it is no surprise that the screeching harpy who has launched a thousand Tory wet dreams exposed a bit more of the lordly class's true thinking than she expected when appearing at the latest incarnation of the Nuremburg Rally.

Let's be clear - Ann Coulter is not some marginal verbal bombthrower. She is not the Ward Churchill of the right. She is -- and has been for years -- the bottle-blonde painted face of the Royalist cause. She is a best-selling author, a Time magazine cover girl and the go-to person for the "Today Show" and "Good Morning America". When she speaks, as Andrew Sullivan makes plainly clear, "she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. " Those would be the same "young" who hooted in laughter and erupted in applause when she used a demeaning slur to describe a presidential candidate.

That she would leap with both feet into the gutter of political discourse is no surprise, of course. Coulter lives in that precinct, feeds in that precinct and makes all of her money there. She, after all, endorsed the assassination of both a sitting Supreme Court justice and a former president. No, the surprise is that Couler revealed so much about herself while spewing her venom. That she would use a derogatory term for a gay man when referring to a long-married father of three (John Edwards) makes it clear Coulter has some serious gender-identity issues.

So do all those "young" contemporary conservative activists her twisted slur aroused so vigorously.

It is only mildly surprising that three Royalist pretenders to the throne of King George would bother denouncing her performance. Of course, they did so with a demeanor of "more in sorrow than in anger". McCain says her words were "inappropriate". Guliani, who spends his spare time in women's clothing, used the same term. Romney, who once boasted of his pro-gay rights credentials, called the vicious attack on Edwards "offensive". All three are skilled, polished and veteran politicans. They know they can't allow the stain of Coulter to reach their hemlines if they have any chance of seeing their ambitions come to fruition.

A few Royalist blogs have followed suit, according to Slate:

" 'Ann Coulter doesn't speak for us,' harrumphed Red State. Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey wrote that 'such offensive language—and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it—is intolerable to us.' Newsbusters' Warner Todd Huston dubbed Coulter 'the H.L. Mencken of our times ... minus the intellect.'"

Huston's attitude toward Coulter could best be described as "praising with faint damnation". It is hardly an insult, after all, to be compared to Mencken and found wanting. But Huston's musings on the Coulter affair don't even focus on her wildly inappropriate behavior. Instead, he tries to ju jitsu the issue into an attack on the Royalist Right's favorite whipping boy, the Mainstream (or Liberal) Media. He compiles a few news clippings from Reuters, the New York Times and (seriously) a college newspaper. Based on this exhaustive research, Huston then draws himself up to his full height and bellows "Bias!"

Why? Because, he assures us, none of those august news organzations has said anything about that awful Bill Maher. And what, pray tell, should they be denouncing? This:

"I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. " After making it clear he wasn't encouraging, or even wishing for, the assassination of the Vice President, Maher added: "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact."

Shame on the Liberal Media, Huston intones, for not working themselves into a lather. The evidence is plain, he concludes: "No MSM reports of Maher wishing the VP were assassinated."

Except, of course, Maher did no such thing. (Perhaps that's why no reputable news organization reported on it, even while state-run media were flogging it incessantly.) Huston is lying, clumsily, in an attempt to cover his latter-day Mencken's tracks. He hails "every upstanding Conservative and GOP candidate [who] was falling all over themselves [sic] in compliance to denounce Coulter's remarks." Another lie. Upstanding conservatives Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter have done no such thing. Upstanding conservative John Gibson is actually defending Coulter.

But in amongst all these lies, there is a bigger one -- one the Royalist faction uses at every opportunity. It's the lie of proportionality. By comparing Coulter's slur to Maher's comment, Huston is saying that they are equally inappropriate. They are not. Coulter deliberately disparaged a national politician with a bigotry-laced personal assault. Maher used a particularly disturbing "what if" scenario to comment on the results of the regime's policies.

That is not the biggest difference Huston tries to obscure with prevarication. Ann Coulter is a widely-known, widely-quoted, deeply revered celebrity icon of the Royalist cause. Bill Maher is a stand-up comic. Ann Coulter spilled her bile at the most prestigious gathering of Bush worshippers to be staged this year, and did so from the same stage the Imperial Regent himself bestrode. Bill Maher appeared on a late night cable TV comedy show.

They are different, not just in degree, but in kind. Huston, and Coulter, and the whole Royalist movement hope and pray you don't notice that.

War is Over (If You Want It)

2006-12-27T17:56:00.000-08:00

This holiday season has been haunted by a melody. John Lennon and Yoko Ono originally released "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" just before Christmas in 1971, at a time when the Vietnam War seemed likely never to end. Re-released in 1972, the record resonated with war-weary Americans who wanted the fighting to end. By then, the My Lai Massacre court martial and the Pentagon Papers had seeped into the public consciousness. Most Americans knew the war had to end, and end soon. Opinion polls showed support for the Vietnam War dropping to about 30% by mid-1971. That lack of support did not translate quickly into government action, though, since Congress wouldn't cut off funding for Vietnam combat operations until December 1974 (three years after "Happy Xmas" debuted).

Hearing the refrain "War is over/If you want it" wafting from the car radio in recent days has produced the same sort of melancholoy it did on first hearing 35 years ago. I found myself pleading with John. "I want it," I cried. "I want it over! Tell me how!" About one in 10 Americans thinks sending more cannon fodder into Charnel House Iraq is a good idea. Apparently, though, all of the people who think that way work for the Imperial House of Bush. The Boy King is poised to squander more of our lives and treasure on his bid for immortality and empire.

"Tell me how, John. How can I make it be over?"

Yet it occurs to me that the power to put this nightmare to an end is within our collective grasp. If we want it, we can make it be over. Here's how:

Call your U.S. Representative and Senators, particularly any who are newly-elected Democrats. Ask them to support -- or even propose -- repeal of Public Law 107-243. That action would withdraw Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. The statute, approved in October of 2002, gave approval for the Iraq War. Specifically, it says:

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Despite all the shifting rationales offered by the Usurper for his Grand Babylonian Adventure over the years, he never fails to point out that a bipartisan majority of Congress gave him the green light to attack Iraq. While he takes a rather sweeping view of what Public Law 107-243 empowers him to do, its actual provisions are quite limited. He can use the U.S. military to end the "continuing threat" Iraq posed to "the national security of the United States". He is also empowered to use the U.S. military to "enforce all relevant" U.N. resolutions.

Simply put, both of those objectives have been achieved.

Even if you grant the specious argument that in March 2003, Iraq posed a threat to the national security of the United States, you cannot argue that the Iraq of today poses such a threat. Of course, there are people inside Iraq who would do harm to the U.S. forces occupying the country. But that isn't "Iraq". The "Iraq" referenced in the statute specifically means the government of Iraq, not individual citizens, or even large groups of them. The current government of Iraq, duly recognized by both the U.S. and the U.N., poses absolutely no threat to the "national security of the United States." Not even the most rabid Royalist would make that claim. So the first goal set out by Congress has been met.

The second goal refers specifically to the U.N. Security Council resolutions approved during and after the 1991 Gulf War. (His Imperious Majesty tried to get a new resolution approved in 2003, but it never happened, so there's nothing more recent to enforce.) Since the purported goal of the U.S. invasion was to kill terrorists, "disarm" Iraq of illicit weapons and "free" the Iraqi people, the "relevant" resolutions are those addressing these issues. There are three.

UNSC Resolution 686, adopted in March 1991 requires that Iraq "[p]rovide all information and assistance in identifying Iraqi mines, booby traps and other explosives as well as any chemical and biological weapons and material in Kuwait, in areas of Iraq where forces of Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) are present temporarily, and in adjacent waters..."

Fifteen years after that war, and nearly four years after the invasion, it is clear there are no more mines, booby traps, explosives, chemical or biological weapons in Kuwait or in the areas of Iraq where occupying forces operate.

UNSC Resolution 687, adopted in April 1991, orders (in section 8) "that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities..."

As U.N. inspectors made clear in early 2003, and as numerous U.S. military and intelligence surveys conducted since have confirmed, there are no stockpiles of banned weapons in Iraq, and any medium range ballistic missiles have been destroyed or seized by the occupiers.

UNSC Resolution 688 addresses the 1991 post-war Iraqi campaign against independence-minded Kurds in the north and "[d]emands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected..."

We are told repeatedly by minions of the Boy King , and by the Decider himself, that Iraq is a "young democracy" today. How many times have we heard of those "three elections" and that "new constitution"? Or about a "government of national unity"? No one -- at least, no one in the Clown-in-Chief's inner circle -- argues that the government of Iraq is committing the kinds of human rights abuses described by the Security Council a decade and a half ago.

By the regime's own account, the objectives put forward in the statute authorizing military action against Iraq have been achieved. Mission accomplished!

Public Law 107-243 is no longer necessary, since its goals have been met. Therefore, it's time for Congress to remove it from the books. There is no rational argument for keeping it. Of course, there was no rational argument for adopting it in the first place, but that's another debate alogether.

Blogger Steve Soto argues Congress should go further and rescind the 2001 measure authorizing use of military force against terrorists. He makes a telling point: not only did King George claim the statute (Public Law 107-40) gave him authority to invade Iraq (which it didn't), he undoubtedly will claim it authorizes the next war he intends to wage -- against Iran or Syria or Venezuela or whatever country he happens to dislike at the moment. Soto writes:

"Why shouldn’t the Democratic leadership force Republicans to side with the president’s unchecked powers to wage war in the aftermath of Bush’s blow-off of the ISG report? Why shouldn’t the new Congress force the president to come to Congress before any hostilities begin with another country? It won’t stop him from doing it, because Scott Ritter says he’ll do it regardless, but rescinding the AUMF is the first step to putting his next war under a bright light for the American people."

In stating the argument this way, Soto actually buys into the regime's claim that the statute, known as the AUMF, did, indeed, grant the authority to invade Iraq. That it didn't is clear from reading the text of the law:

"...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Public Law 107-40

Since Iraq had no role in planning, authorizing, committing or aiding in the September 11th attacks (as His Royal Oafishness has admitted), it clearly doesn't fall under the scope of the AUMF. Saudi Arabia might. Egypt might. Pakistan does. Afghanistan surely did (and does). Sudan, too. But Iraq? No way. Iran? Not a chance. Syria? Laughable. Any attempt to cloak aggression against either of the latter two nations in the authorization of Public Law 107-40 would never pass muster before a Congress that is populated by anything but somnambulists.

There are countries that continue to harbor the perpetrators of 9/11 (Pakistan and Afghanistan most notably). If there ever is a real U.S.-led war against the terrorists who attacked the United States, whoever is serving as president can rely on Public law 107-40 to go after them. (This assumes the United States will ever again be a constitutional republic with three operational branches of government -- no sure bet, that.) Repealing it would limit that hypothetical chief executive's options at a time when those options are sorely and urgently needed.

No, it takes only one step -- repeal of the Iraq War resolution -- to end the carnage. The challenge facing the new Democratic Congress is daunting, and that's where you come in. Make the call. Explain the rationale, and press your elected representatives to act.

War is over.
If you want it.

Definition of Terms

2006-11-17T16:37:00.000-08:00

So the Democrats have won control of the Congress, and beginning in January the Republic is once again in safe hands, eh?

WRONG!

I have resisted categorizing the current crop of government officials by their party labels. The political parties have their differences, but on the most vital issue of our time -- the runaway totalitarianism that has our country by the throat -- the dividing line is not neatly separated by (R) and (D). It is more constructive, in this context, to divide the governing class between Royalists and Anti-Royalists.

The dictionary defines "royalist" as "an adherent of a king or of monarchical government". There is no question that the entirety of the Republican Party's ruling elite consists of Royalists. They are willing to do make any sacrifice -- especially any sacrifice of your inherent liberties -- to support the monarchical designs of our Boy King and his Regent, the Dark Lord of Wyoming. In the wake of their overwelming rejection by American voters on November 7th, the Republican Royalists continue carrying out their designs for enforcing their vision of ordered and orderly society on the rest of us. Don't believe me? Check out what they were doing six days after the election:

"Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees."

This argument is made in the case of a Qatari citizen, a legal U.S. resident, who was detained five years ago as a "material witness" in the 9/11 investigation. After some time in the custody of the FBI, The Empire charged him with lying to investigators. Then, just before he was about to go on trial for those charges (which he vigorously denies), he was designated an "enemy combatant" and locked up inside a military prison in South Carolina.

To be clear, this is not some Taliban grunt grabbed off a battlefield in Afghanistan, or pro-Saddamist insurgent who was setting roadside bombs in Iraq. This man was a student at a U.S. college, who was seized on American soil (specifically, Peoria, Illinois), where he had the legal right to be. Now, the Royalists insist, he has no rights at all. They can hold him forever, without bothering to explain to him -- or anyone else -- why he is being held. He is not permitted to ask a court to review his status, or the conditions of his imprisonment. Glenn Greenwald succinctly summarizes the outrage the Royalists are perpetrating:

"There is no greater betrayal of the core principles of American political life than to have the federal government sweep people off the streets, throw them into a black hole with no contact with the outside world and no charges asserted of any kind, and simply keep them there for as long as the President desires..."

Actually, the betrayal goes even deeper. The Imperial Inquistors claim as justification for their actions the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a particularly cynical manipulation of the laws of common sense (not to mention common decency), the government claims its treatment of this man is in full accordance with a law that wasn't even passed by Congress until nearly five years after his liberty was denied him. The Royalists would have us believe that they were complying with a law that hadn't even been written when the Clown-in-Chief designated the man an "enemy combatant."

Perhaps we should refer to him as the Kreskin-in-Chief. He apparently has the power to see into the future and know what laws will apply in the years to come.

So the Royalist position is clear -- the government has the untramelled right to grab someone from his or her home and lock that peron away forever, with no questions asked. That is not a twisted reading of the Military Commissions Act. It is, in fact, the express purpose of the statute -- to put any action by the executive against an individual beyond the reach of any oversight or review (legislative or judicial). It forbids courts from examining either the terms of a person's incarceration, or the conditions of imprisonment.

It, in short, legalizes the Star Chamber and empowers it to torture anyone it sees fit.

The Miliary Commissions Act is the most prized possession of the Imperial regime. It vests extraordinary, and uninhibited, power in the government to use against its citizens, and against legal residents of the United States, and against anyone in the world deemed an Enemy of the Crown. It is the ultimate expression (so far) of monarchical authority.

The legislation was enacted without any pretense. Every member of Congress who voted for it knew exactly what he or she was approving. As a result, I believe it can fairly be viewed as a litmus test to separate the Royalists from the Anti-Royalists. And, it should come as no surprise, not a single Republican member of the United States Senate voted against it.

More importantly, however, there were 12 Democratic Senators who also voted to enact this tyrannical measure*. They are:

Carper (D-DE), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO) and Stabenow (D-MI).

When Congress convenes its new session in January, all 12 will still be in office. They may be Democrats (with the exception of Lieberman, who returns as some sort of bastardized independent), but they are also Royalists.

Democrats won the majority in Congress, but do the math. There will be 49 Republican Senators who endorsed the omnipotent executive, and 12 Democratic Senators. That means the true majority in the Senate will be held by 61 Royalists.

Still feel like celebrating the Democratic Party's election "victory"?
_____
* 32 Democratic members of the House also voted for this abomination.

It's Official: American Democracy Is Dead

2006-11-05T14:22:00.000-08:00

If you think the tide of anti-Royalist sentiment now rising across America will have any effect on the ruling junta, think again. The Imperial Regent himself has declared democracy no longer applies. When asked about the overwhelming desire by the American people to end the war in Iraq, the Power Behind the Throne said, in effect, "F*** yourselves."

"It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter, in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office, we're doing what we think is right." (emphasis added)

It's hard to get any more plain-spoken than that. The Dark Lord himself has proclaimed the wishes of the American people don't matter. And if the anti-Royalists are routed at the polls on Tuesday, the Boy King will pay no particular notice. His Imperiousness Cheney again (Americablog has the video; it's 50 seconds in):

"I think it'll have some effect perhaps in the Congress, but the president's made clear what his objective is. It's victory in Iraq. And it's full speed ahead on that basis. And that's exactly what we're going to do." (emphasis added)

So let's review -- the Torturer-in-Chief will ignore the clearly expressed desire of the American people to end the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq and slaughter of its populace, even if that desire is expressed by changing the majority in Congress. Such a change will have no bearing on what our Imperial masters do, and may not even effect what happens inside the United States Capitol.

The first part of that assertion is bald-faced arrogance, breathtaking in its sweep but not particularly surprising. It is the second part that may reveal more than the Overlord of the Potomac intended. Stripping the Royalists of their legislative majority, he tells us, may not have any effect on the workings of Congress. Considering that for most of the past six years Congress has been an obedient lapdog of the Imperium, it's hard to imagine that there's any way an anti-Royalist majority won't affect its actions. Yet Cheney is raising the distinct possibility that it will be business-as-usual no matter who runs the House and/or Senate.

Is there any clearer indication that the ruling junta intends to hold onto power beyond this election? (And, perhaps, beyond...) The conclusion is unavoidable. The American Experiment in self-governance has been terminated. With extreme prejudice.

Even so, I am not advocating an abdication of each citizen's responsibility as an American. Vote. Vote enthusiastically. Vote, and insist you are presented with evidence that your ballot has been properly recorded and counted. Vote, and encourage everyone you know to vote.

Then remember that the election itself is but a means to an end. The real work of reclaiming our country from this criminal gang of usurpers merely begins on November 7th. It won't end until they are all behind bars.

Preferrably at someplace like Guantanamo, where they can learn first-hand about the efficacy of their own "alternative interrogation techniques".

The Fix Is In

2006-10-15T15:01:00.000-07:00

You can tell who's in and who's out at the court of the Boy King these days. These guys are out:

"Some Republican strategists are increasingly upset with what they consider the overconfidence of President Bush and his senior advisers about the midterm elections November 7–a concern aggravated by the president's news conference this week.

"'They aren't even planning for if they lose,' says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing."

Contrast that to the guys who really know what's going on:

"Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.

[snip]

"The official White House line of supreme self-assurance comes from the top down. Bush has publicly and privately banished any talk of losing the GOP majorities, in part to squelch any loss of nerve among his legions. Come January, he said last week, 'We'll have a Republican speaker and a Republican leader of the Senate.'"

Rational observers -- those who spend their time in the real world rather than in the hot-house environment of the Royal Court -- suggest His Imperial Cluelessness and his Popeil Pocket Machiavelli are quite simply, out of touch with reality. Well, DUH! They are famously disconnected from the world where the rest of us live.

That doesn't mean they don't have designs on -- and for -- that world. I'm with Steve Soto on this one. The Torturer-in-Chief isn't overconfident. He simply knows what the rest of us do not -- the fix is in. The Royalist machine simply cannot lose on November 7th, no matter the outcome of the election (assuming, against all evidence, there will be one).

So let's play a little game, shall we? It's called "Guess How They'll Do It". I've explored some of the possible ways the Royalists could thwart the will of the American people before. Recently, though, I have hit upon an idea that I think would appeal to the apparatchiks of Pennsylvania Avenue. It is based on the ideas expressed by both The Pretender and his Texas Rasputin. As the Washington Post reports:

"But party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats -- shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats..."

The most recent polls suggest Anti-Royalists will gain significantly more than the 15 seats needed to retake control of the House. As Charlie Cook puts it:

"I think a 30-seat gain today for Democrats is more likely to occur than a 15-seat gain, the minimum that would tip the majority. The chances of that number going higher are also strong, unless something occurs that fundamentally changes the dynamic of this election. This is what Republican strategists' nightmares look like. "

If what "party operatives" tell the Post is true, Rove is ready to concede up to 10 seats. With three incumbent Royalists already behind bars and a fourth safely tucked away in rehab (with, one would hope, little or no Internet access), that means he only has to let six additional seats fall by the wayside to hit his number. I suspect he already has those seats picked out. So now he need only find a way to meddle in five (at a minimum) to 20 (at a maximum) races and he'll achieve the Royal Court's goal.

And they need not steal all of those races, though I'd be thoroughly unsurprised if they did. No, they only need to gum up the electoral machinery a bit. A well-timed call to Diebold would do it. If I was him, I'd have a congressional district map already marked with stars to denote which 20 races will be targeted. (Okay, maybe 30, just to be safe.) The Royalists have a powerful weapon as they hatch this plot: Bush v. Gore. In that case, the Surpreme Court was asked to take the extraordinary step of halting an election because -- and this was the most salient point -- someone might lose. Not just any "someone," of course. It was the "someone" to whom most of the Justices had sworn fealty. The actual ruling hides that issue in a blizzard of contradictory and obfuscatory legalese, but the petition (.pdf) filled on behalf of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney nakedly states their cause of action:

"A stay pending this Court’s review of these substantial federal questions is
essential to prevent Applicants from suffering irreparable injury..." (emphasis added)

The injury, in this case, was losing the election. The Busheviks were fully aware that if there was a fair and accurate count of the votes cast in Florida, they would lose. The Supreme Court dutifully accepted this argument and issued a stay, halting the Florida recount. Once the stay was issued, there was no chance in hell the votes would ever be counted. Game over.

It worked then, and there's no reason to believe it won't work again. After all, the Supreme Court is, if anything, more compliant now than it was in December of 2000. So all it will take to prevent the Anti-Royalists from claiming the majority in the House (or, for that matter the Senate, but let's focus on the lower chamber for simplicity's sake) on November 7 is a few dozen legal challenges, based on the same argument -- counting the ballots will cause "irreparable injury" to the losing candidates.

The Bush v. Gore case sped through the federal judiciary in 38 days. Any challenges based on the same reasoning this fall will, no doubt, take a more leisurely stroll through the courts. (Bob Dornan, a proto-Royalist defeated for re-election in 1996, was still trying to wrest his seat back from its lawful holder more than a year after the ballots were counted.) It is well within the realm of possibility that 20 or 30 House seats will still be contested when Congress reconvenes in January. That raises the intiguing spectre that the Royalists could -- in effect -- prevent Congress from doing any work, indefinitely.

Providing they can convince federal judges of the pressing need for a Royalist majority...ahem, I mean, that Royalist candidates would suffer irreparable injury if all the votes are counted, the Bushies can deny their opponents a majority on the opening day of the new Congress. This is a key element to the scheme. The Rules of the House require a quorum to conduct any business, including the election of a Speaker. Under the Rules of the House, a quorum consists of 218 members*. Should the Royalists manage to bottle up several -- or several dozen -- elections after the November election, they can ensure that, on the first day of the new congressional session, there won't be 218 Anti-Royalists on hand. All the Royalists need do then is retreat en masse to someplace outside Washington.

Don't laugh. There's nothing outlandish about using this tactic. In fact, it was done recently in Texas, when Anti-Royalist lawmakers decamped across the Red River in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to stop a patently illegal Royalist plan for congressional redistricting. (Needless to say, the Supreme Court later ruled it almost-perfectly legal.)

If there aren't 218 members of the House present, no legislation can be enacted. No Speaker can be elected. No subpoenas can be issued. No committee investigations can be launched. Any action taken by the Senate is be irrelevant, since it cannot be considered by the House. In other words, Congress simply doesn't exist.

No Congress -- the ultimate Royalist wet dream. King George will be free to rule by fiat and there's no one to stop him.

God bless America.

* There are contingency plans for conducting House business in the absence of a quorum. They are only exercised, however, on the order of the Speaker. If there's no Speaker, QED, no one can "pull the trigger" to put them into effect.

Making It Up

2006-10-09T18:15:00.000-07:00

What is it about Royalists? It has been abundantly clear since at least the 1970's that His Imperious Cluelessness would rather lie than tell the truth. Perhaps it's some sort of contagion -- passed from one Royalist to the next like a social disease. Whatever the reason, those who would prop up the usurper can't help themselves. They lie. Repeatedly, unabashedly and in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Take Martin Frost. Once upon a time, he was a Democratic congressman from Texas. Before that (loooong before that), Frost was a newspaper reporter. It says very little about his journalistic mentors that the ex-politician, now shilling for the state-run media, can't be botherd to get his facts straight. In a column on the Internet version of the American Izvestia, Frost (correctly) warns that the Royalists are on the cusp of losing their Congressional majority. But that's where his contact with reality ends. Frost writes:

"The current page scandal is an exact re-run of the scandal House Democrats faced in 1994 over the House Bank and the House postal system, except that the parties are reversed. This year it’s the Republicans who are on the ropes and the outcome should be the same…devastating results for the party in power."

"Exact re-run", Frost assures us. That would lead the reader to conclude that the House Bank scandal involved sexual predators in the Democratic Party, and efforts by party leaders to cover-up for their activities. Of course, nothing like that ever happened. As Frost explains:

"The House Banking scandal was pretty simple. Members of Congress were permitted to open bank accounts with a special bank operated by the Sergeant at Arms. There were no service charges and, more significantly, members of Congress had unlimited overdraft protection. In other words, they could write any number of hot checks (checks that exceeded the amount on deposit) and they were given a significant amount of time to deposit funds in their account to make these checks goods [sic]."

So let's review: in the House Bank scandal, members of both parties were permitted to use an office in the Capitol Building as a sort of free-form ATM, cashing checks without facing the typical bank's pressure -- or penalty fees -- to cover them. Oh, yeah -- that's an "exact re-run" of what Mark Foley was doing. Just like the 1968 Democratic National Convention was an "exact re-run" of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Not content to make such a specious comparison, Frost then starts spinning a fiction:

"In 1994, then Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., was slow to react to growing scandals surrounding the operations of the House Bank and the House postal system. There were early warnings that things were amiss but it took Foley and the rest of the Democratic Leadership months to respond and by then the entire matter had spun out of control. "

Only the first seven words of that passage bear any resemblance to the truth. The House Bank scandal did erupt in an election year. But it was 1992, not 1994. Then there was the Congresssional Post Office scandal, which broke in 1991 and became an issue in 1992. In the election that November, despite the largest turnover among members of Congress in 40 years, Democrats not only retained their majorities in the House and Senate, they won the presidency as well. Perhaps Frost doesn't remember, but he was one of those Democrats who got elected that year.

To his credit, the former politician does acknowledge that neither of these Congressional scandals of the 1990's is nearly as serious as the Foley page-trolling affair. But no sooner has Frost made that concession than he rolls out the biggest lie:

"Nevertheless, the House Bank scandal and the House post office scandal became big issues in the 1994 elections and were a major contributing factor to the Republican victory that year.
The Republicans in 1994 raised these scandals as proof that the Democratic leadership had lost its way and could not be trusted to run the House in the proper manner."

False. Utterly and blatantly false. And Frost, who was there when it happened, should know it.

By 1994, the House Bank scandal had absolutely no traction with voters -- largely because voters had learned in the intervening years that two of the three most egregious abusers of the House Bank were Republicans! Moreover, three members of the Republican Cabinet (including a fellow named Cheney) admitted bouncing checks while they were in the House. Even the chief flamethrower, the person most loudly screaming "corruption" as the House Bank scandal was stoked by right-wingers -- yes, Newt Gingrich -- helped himself at the "no cash - no problem" check-cashing service. He used his role in blowing the "scandal" out of proportion (and his earlier nakedly vicious attacks on the previous House Speaker) to catapult from the back benches into the GOP leadership.

From that perch, Newtie spearheaded the political guerrilla warfare that won the Republicans their congressional majority in 1994. It wasn't the House Bank scandal that energized the GOP that year. It was, in large part, the electorate's weariness with 40 years of Democratic control in Congress, coupled with its uneasiness about the ineptitude of Bill Cinton's first 18 months in the Oval Office.

None of this is news to Martin Frost. He was there for all of it. But he's pretty sure you don't remember, so he's re-writing recent history in an effort to raise the appearance of equivalency. The Democrats got their comeuppance because of a tempest in a teapot, he argues, and now it's the Royalists' turn. Those silly American voters, he's saying, they are so easily influenced by the inconsequential.

As it happens, if Frost really were trying to draw parallels between 1994 and 2006, he had no need to invent events. Reality tells the same story. In 1994, Democrats were focused only on keeping the levers of power in their own hands. They were widely viewed as -- if not corrupt -- then at a minimum complicit in a corrupt system (known as The United States Government - proving some things never change). Voters decided they would no longer be taken for granted and washed them out in an electoral tsunami. The Royalist Party of 2006 has taken corruption to new levels of avarice and arrogance. Their blind devotion to power for power's sake (including their lock-step march in the shadow of King George) appears to be wearing thin.

But Frost, having firmly fallen in line with the Royalists, has also cloaked himself in their trappings. He will, just as they, choose to lie when the truth can suffice. That tendency has always puzzled me. Why fabricate when the facts are in your favor? Even if you don't believe "honesty is the best policy", or "the truth shall make you free", it's actually more difficult to make stuff up. Especially if you do it in public. Not everyone is a slobbering moron with the memory capacity of a lobotomized gnat. Someone, somewhere, at some time, will eventually call you on your lies.

I admit I don't understand this borderline-patholigical need to concoct facts. But it occurs to me the Royalists may do it for a merely practical reason: to keep in practice.

Beware the Cornered Beast

2006-10-07T11:43:00.000-07:00

It has been extraordinarily entertaining to watch the vaunted Royalist political machine -- which has been terrorizing the landscape of American public discourse for nearly three decades --- turn almost overnight into a circular firing squad. Following the exposure of an Internet sex predator in their midst, members of the ruling party initially responded with their typical reflex -- blame someone else. In most cases, they first blamed each other, with House of Representatives Chief Rubber Stamper Dennis Hastert (R-Denial) taking the strongest and most vigorous fragging. Proving he is no dummy, Hastert -- immediately upon understanding that bombs were going off under his feet -- pivoted the blame elsewhere. Big Denny assures us the true malefactors in all of this are not the IM'ing Royalist Mark Foley, nor the many Royalist members of the House who knew he was trolling for teenagers, nor the even more numerous Royalist functionaries in the Capitol who were sounding alarms about his habits. No, Hastert would have us believe those most culpable are those who had nothing to do with it -- the Anti-Royalists and their scurrilous bankrollers.

In doing so, Hastert is merely following the example of his Beloved Leader. For the past week, King George has been prancing hither and yon ramping up his Election Year message: "Shake in your boots, my good people, for you are all about to die -- unless you vote correctly." Oh, he hasn't been using those words (though one of his enablers is more blunt: "These are people [who] will kill all of us, any one of us.") but his message couldn't be clearer. Keith Olbermann -- who somehow managed to transform himself from a cerebral, detached chronicler of large men playing children's games into a sharp-tongued firebrand of the Anti-Royalist cause when I wasn't looking -- calls His Imperiousness to account:

"The president of the United States — unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.
{snip}
"A president who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward’s most recent account — evidently has never listened. A president who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy. A president who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack — attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both — it is now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy is.

"But if we know one thing for certain about Mr. Bush, it is this: This president — in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month — has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies are, they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak called the Constitution of the United States of America."

Olbermann is, of course, only saying out loud what rational Americans have known in their hearts and minds for years. Refreshing as it is to hear someone give voice to such thoughts, I can't help but wonder if maybe those words are too dangerous to speak. For Olbermann personally, and for the country generally.

Here's why: the Royalists are backed into a corner with no apparent avenue of escape. By every objective measurement, they are about four weeks away from losing the majority in at least half -- if not all -- of Congress. Their tried-and-true campaign message ("Vote for us or you'll all die!") has been drowned out for a week by the Foley scandal. But even before that, the red-meat message had begun to decompose. Its fetid aroma just wasn't getting the digestive juices of the electorate flowing like it did in 2002 and 2004. Too many people are starting to understand, as soccerdad at The Left Coaster puts it:

"Possibly the greatest long term threat to the Republic has been the continued accumulation of power by the unitary president."

The problem is the accumulation of power has already happened. Congress has voted to permit the Boy King to abduct, imprison, and torture -- unto death, if he deems it needed -- any American citizen he considers an enemy of the crown. Congress has voted to give him authority to monitor the phone calls, emails, instant messages and all other communications of any American citizen (with the possible exception of Mark Foley). Royal apologists will insist Congress did not make such a sweeping capitulation to the "unitary executive", and they will be lying (as usual).

With that much power in his hands, there is no way this Imperial Highness will sit idly by and watch his retainers be voted out of power. There is no beast more dangerous than one cornered. Rest assured, the Brain Trust that has brought America to its sorry current state is hard at work on ways to destroy the opposition and cling to power. Can disappearances of prominent or vocal critics be far behind? (Someone already tried to scare Olbermann into silence. Unsuccessfully.)

October Surprise, anyone?

Next Steps

2006-09-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

Now that the Torturer-in-Chief has in his grasp the tools to imprison anyone, anywhere, for any (or no) reason, forever, while subjecting them to repeated and prolonged torture, what's next? I don't mean that in the same sense that Tristero at Digby asks the question, "Well. Now what?" He is pondering ways of combatting the Imperial Leader now that he has untrammelled power. Tristero offers no contructive ideas, other than staring clear-eyed into the reality of what America has become, but he does sound a rallying cry:

"Finally, we must realize that we will be fighting what this unspeakable bastard has done to the country and the world for a very long time. "

Likewise, Glenn Greenwald is issuing a call to the barricades:

"The most important and overriding mandate is to end the one-party rule to which our country has been subjected for the last four years. Achieving that is necessary -- it is an absolute pre-requisite -- to begin to impose some actual limits on the authoritarian behavior and unchecked powers of this administration -- because, right now, there are no such limits."

Such pronouncements are entertaining, but Greenwald has inadvertently admitted they are equally irrational. There are, he notes, no longer any limits on excutive power. Yet he suggests the Boy King and his Imperial Regent will somehow be reined in by the "power of the ballot":

"George Bush and Dick Cheney will never face even another midterm election ever again. They will be free to run wild for the next two years with a Congress that is so submissive and blindly loyal that it is genuinely creepy to behold."

Sorry, Glenn. It isn't going to happen. In the unlikely event there is an election on November 7th, its result will be completely irrelevant. The legislation slavishly adopted by the Royalist-controlled Congress explicits removes any legislative oversight on executive power. Once that law is on the books (by next week), there will be nothing Congress can do to stop Imperial excesses. Nothing. Congress has rendered itself -- and the people who elected it -- utterly impotent. Even if the Anti-Royalists were allowed the win a majority in this election, they would have absolutely no power to reverse the course upon which the Royalists have set us. An outright repeal of the Torture Enablement Act of 2006, were such a thing ever to win a majority vote in Congress, would be promptly vetoed. And the Royalists will maintain enough Congressional seats to ensure no override could succeed.

More likely, any Anti-Royalist who even proposed such a thing would disapear into the American gulag for life. After all, trying to limit George the Tyrant's power to break the bodies of his enemies is "objectively pro-terrorist". Now that there's a new secret police force in charge of identifying enemies of the crown, I have no doubt there are many Imperial minions poring over newspaper articles and Internet posts, compiling names of those who will be "disappeared".

So I'm not of a mind to conjure up ways to try and undo what has been done to our nation. frankly, I'm more interested in trying to divine what the Torquemada-in-Chief will do first, now that he can act with impugnity (and, needless to say, legal immunity). It has already started, of course. He is branding anyone who disagrees with him as allies of terrorists. How long will it take him to start ordering their apprehension, detention and interrogation by "alternate techniques"? A week? A month?

Perhaps he'll just designate every Anti-Royalist candidate for Congress an "enemy of the crown" and have them all rounded up before election day. That seems a rather labor-intensive way to achieve his goals. And this guy doesn't do anything the hard way. No, he wants the simplest, most straightforward method possible.

He's going to cancel the election. No doubt, someone will come up with "credible threat" that will trigger a national emergency (read: "martial law") to provide some sort of cover story for calling off the November 7th vote. It doesn't matter how specious the supposed "threat" turns out to be. It only need to be superficially serious enough to allow his Imperial Eminence to unplug the voting machines. No election, no chance of losing the Congressional majority that has enabled him so far.

But these guys think in the long term. So I'm wondering what the Boy King intends to do about the looming end of his term. He cannot, under the Constitution, serve beyond January 20, 2009. That's not nearly long enough to accomplish everything he has set out to do. Shoot, it's barely enough time to hand out "reconstruction contracts" for post-war Iran. I suspect there's already a plan in the works to get around that little impediment. It might work something like this:

Sometime in 2009, after the the cancellation of the presidential election and the enthronement of a permanent, hereditary Emperor of America in the person of little Junior Bush, Imperial Viceroy Dick Cheney will take quite ill. (Not so ill that he can't serve as the liberally-compensated chairman of a major defense contractor, mind you, but ill enough that he's not up to actually running the empire any more.) The Emperor will no doubt designate someone close to him to take over the day-to-day management of the imperium -- preferably, someone who has executive experience, but also has unquestioned loyalty to the royal family.

There's really only one candidate, of course: Jeb Bush. He is after all the next in the line of family succession. He'll be out of work (his current term ends in January and he can't run again). And he is slavishly devoted to his big brother. Moreover, his elevation will ensure the orderly, hereditary royal bloodline.

In time, George the Tyrant will tire of his duties. After all, he's never held a job for more than a handful of years (his half decade at the helm of the Texas Rangers and six years as Governor of Texas are his longest tenures in any position before his current one). Sometime in the next few years, he'll be ready to move on -- there's plenty of brush to clear back in Crawford. Jeb will take his place on the throne and, of course, immediately designate his own Crown Prince to carry on the family tradition.

Long live the King.

The Compleat Tyrant

2006-09-28T17:08:00.000-07:00

There has been a truly shameless spectacle playing out in Washington the last few weeks. The Royalists are staging naked aggression against the most sacred principles of the American republic, and no one has seemed willing to call them on it. Only in the 59th minute of the 11th hour have putative Anti-Royalists bothered to raise an objection. As a result, there seems to be nothing that will prevent the United States Congress from abandoning the people who elected it to the tryannical whims of our Boy King.

Both House and Senate have now voted to grant the Pretender-in-Chief that which he most covets -- the untrammeled and absolute right to declare anyone anywhere in the world an "enemy of the crown". Those so designated may be abducted, confined, tortured, even killed, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no appeal, no review, not a single check or balance on this Imperial whim.

That is not a statement of hyperbole. It is a fact, as noted by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman in the Los Angeles Times:

"The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Glenn Greenwald quite properly names the authors of this traitorous outrage:

"...we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period. Primary responsibility for this fact lies with the authoritarian Bush administration and its sickeningly submissive loyalists in Congress. That is true enough. But there is no point in trying to obscure the fact that it's happening with the cowardly collusion of the Senate Democratic leadership, which quite likely could have stopped this travesty via filibuster if it chose to (it certainly could have tried)."

King George the Tyrant is bringing to reality a long-held Royalist dream -- to strip Americans of any right to question the actions of their overlords. That right is embodied in the writ of habeas corpus, a legal protection enshrined as the cornerstone of self-governance as far back as the Magna Carta. It has been under attack by Royalists for decades. Consider:

"Up to now, if you are in prison, you have had the protection of the writ of habeas corpus – the centuries-old legal device by which people wrongfully imprisoned or sentenced to death could raise violations of their constitutional rights or present new evidence that could exonerate them.
If President Bush has his way in the . . . legislation pending before Congress, you won’t have this protection any longer."

That warning -- which could have come from any of a myriad of legal scholars today, had they the fortitude to speak -- was actually written 15 years ago by a criminal defense attorney. He was referring to the FIRST President Bush. As events now unfolding demonstrate, the rotten apple does not fall far from the poisoned tree. And it didn't take long for the Royalists to seize upon the 9/11 attacks to increase their drumbeat for Congress to dispense with the inconvenience of the writ.

"The government’s assault on habeas corpus began six days after September 11, when Attorney General Ashcroft circulated draft legislation — what would soon become the Patriot Act — that included provisions for suspending the writ."

Five years later, Ashcroft can tell his king, "Mission Accomplished". And the legislation doesn't stop at destroying a fundamental liberty. That's a toy only the Boy King and his Crown Prince get to play with. They're the ones -- and the only ones -- who can declare a person an enemy of the crown, order the chosen victim imprisoned and subjected to "alternative interrogation techniques" indefinitely -- until death , if it strikes their fancy. No, there's a little something buried in this odious confection for the rest of the Imperial Court's hired thugs, as CNN's Jack Cafferty explains:

"President Bush is trying to pardon himself. Here’s the deal: Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They’ve been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution they’re trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week before Congress adjourns." (emphasis added)

Yes, King george is granting his most loyal retainers absolution in advance for any depravities they might commit in the coming years, and immunizing them from retribution for crimes already committed. Once the Imperial hand scrawls the name of our Usurper King on the bottom of this measure, then, there is nothing, and no one, to stop him from doing anything he bloody wants. Any elected official, law enforcement officer, or private citizen who dares to voice even the mildest of criticisms can be whisked off to the new American gulag and taught the true meaning of patriotism. And it's all perfectly legal.

How many times will we hear that defense in the coming years? As if getting a sniveling group of cowards masquerading as members of the United States Congress to abandon any semblance of principles and any pretext of upholding the Constitution somehow makes such filthy business wholesome and clean. "It's perfectly legal," we'll be told. "We are following the law," we'll be assured.

It is the first duty of the oppressor to make oppression "legal". That charade has given the color of law to acts of depraved inhumanity for centuries. If you've forgotten, here's a refresher course:

Slavery in the United States, 1776-1861. Perfectly legal.
Apartheid in South Africa, 1948-1994. Perfectly legal.
The Disappeared in Argentina, 1976-1983. Perfectly legal.
The Holocaust in Europe, 1938-1945. Perfectly legal.
The Crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem, circa 30 AD. Perfectly legal.

Our Imperial Master is now poised to join this ghastly parade. The moment this abomination becomes the law of the land, the United States of America will disappear. In its place will be a wholly unrecognizable country where there are no laws, only the iron fist of the despot.

God help us all.

Lies, Damn Lies and Right-wing Whoppers

2006-09-04T17:23:00.000-07:00

As expected, the criminal regime occupying Washington continues to assert its Divine Right to break the law. The laughably mislabelled Department of Justice (Orwell, anyone?) has formally asked a federal judge to allow the National Security Agency (see previous parenthetical) to continue its warrantless eavsdopping on American citizens, which that same judge has already ruled both criminal and unconstitutional. She has also issued a permanent injuction against the felonious conduct, which the NSA is flagrantly flouting. The parties (ACLU on one side, brownshirts on the other) go before her again September 7th to argue over whether she should stay that injunction. Until that time, it is in effect, and, true to form, the gangsters who have sworn fealty to Familia Bush are violating it.

And they will continue to do so, no matter what the outcome of the next hearing. The consiglieri are merely going through the legal motions, knowing full well a higher court will eventually get its hands on the case. And when that happens, the fix is in. The matter will ultimately be determined by a Supreme Court packed with lackeys who have pledged allegiance to the racketeer influenced corrupt organization known as the Royalist White House.

In the meantime, the Royalists are running hither and yon blathering speciously and falsely about the case, the decision and, of course, the judge. Representative is a flatulent blast posted in something called "The Post Chronicle" by Jim Kouri, titled, "Liberal-Left Creates Confusion about NSA Surveillance Program." (Loathe as I am to link to such tripe, you can read it here if you feel you must.) Already in the title, Kouri is lying. The "liberal-left" (as opposed to, say, the conservative-left or the liberal-right, I guess) is not the source of confusion about the NSA's criminal activity. What opponents of our Imperial President have pointed out -- factually and accurately -- is that the NSA surveillance program is felonious, and everyone involved is violating the criminal statutes of the United States (including His Imperialness himself).

Kouri wastes no time following the White House script by obfuscating the legal issues and slandering the judge:

"The moment I read in her decision the term 'warrentless wiretaps' I knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States."

Rarely has a more egregious aggregation of falsehoods ever appeared in a single paragraph written in the English language. Putting aside (for the moment) Kouri's vapid, boilerplate, and completely unsupported assertion that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was practicing politics instead of doing her Constitutional duty, he claims the NSA operation does not involve wiretaps.

Baloney.

Our Puppet King himself said so, when he confirmed the existence of the illegal program on December 17, 2005:
"I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." (Official White House Transcript)

Of course, he was not taking actions "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution", as anyone who has read either could clearly see. But he left no doubt about what the NSA was up to. It was snooping on phone calls -- and emails and instant messages and other supposedly private communications. Kouri is simply talking through his hat when he says there were no wiretaps. The techniques were not limited to wiretaps, but you can rest assured, phones are being bugged.

And note what His Imperial Maliciousness said about who was targeted: "people with known links to al Qaeda". Not "suspected terrorists overseas", as Kouri falsely asserts. "Known links to al Qaeda" could mean virtually anything -- family members, fellow villagers, people in the same area code. And at no point does the Clown-in-Chief assert that it is the targets who are overseas. They could be (indeed, the lawsuit in question alleges, they are) American citizens in their own homes. Under the admitted surveillance program (and there are others that have been acknowleged but not revealed), only one party to the call need be overseas, and it need not be the "linked" person.

So Kouri, not the "liberal-left", is the one sowing "confusion about the NSA surveillance program". But he doesn't stop there. He then proceeds to conflate domestic eavesdropping -- which is permitted under the inherent police powers of the state when conducted within the limits of the law -- with broader powers conferred on the office of the president by statute and Constitution:

"The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

"The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11."

All of which may be true (though not nearly as sweepingly as Kouri asserts), but all of which is absolutely irrelevant to the NSA domestic spying scandal. Kouri is describing the president's powers as commander-in-chief of the military. But the NSA is not a military organization, even though it is often run by a military officer. It does not operate under military "rules of engagement". It operates under the U.S. Code, civil and criminal. So whatever military authority the president has, under the Constitution and federal statutes, it does not extend to the NSA's domestic operations. Moreover, electronic eavesdropping is not a military action. It is a police action. As such, it is permitted only under the constraints imposed, as Judge Taylor rightly points out, by the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Kouri concludes that Congress specifically granted the Bush Junta the power to eavesdrop on American citizens without court supervision in the Joint Resolution known as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force". That is, quite bluntly, an enormous lie. Here is the entire text (minus the "whereas's") of the resolution:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Where, exactly, does Kouri find the word "surveillance" in that resolution? Well, he doesn't. He simply inserts it on his own authority:

"Part of any military action is the gathering of intelligence including intelligence obtained through electronic intercepts."

So just what type of "military action" is the Bush Gang planning in, say, Miami? You know, where that "terrorist cell" busted with much fanfare turned out to be merely "aspirational"? None, of course. It's the FBI that busted them, not the 101st Airborne. The AUMF is completely silent on the domestic investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. There is no way to stretch those words to make them reach the lawless snooping on U.S. citizens.

But Kouri would never be allowed into the right wing "Kool Kidz Klub" without tossing in a few snide remarks about the judge in the case. He makes no pretense of researching her judicial history. Instead, he blithely indicts her as a "Jimmy Carter appointee with a history of activism on the bench". His evidence? She once ruled a patently religious display could not be placed on property owned by taxpayers. (Proving, if nothing else, that the judge has read the First Amendment, and Kouri has not.) He then tosses out a slur at her ethics, with no substantiation. He offers nothing to support his bald assertion that she acts "politically" in ruling on the cases before her.

Before we leave the subject of character assassination, let's give Kouri a little bit of his own medicine. Now, I know nothing about Kouri except for what's in the biographical sketch on his own website (http://jimkouri.us/). That means I know at least as much about his politics, his ethics and his accomplishments as Kouri knows about Judge Taylor. Thus, I can treat him with the same uninformed disdain he treats Her Honor.

This is a man who lists as his leading accomplishment his tenure as the chief (presumably police chief) of a public housing project in New York, which was widely known as "Crack City". Now, honestly, if the place you were in charge of policing earned the reputation as a lawless drug den, would you brag about it? How good a cop does it take to allow the crack plague to fester among society's most vulnerable? If that qualifies him to provide "expert analysis" on the federal statutes regulating government eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, then Paris Hilton is qualified to offer expert commentary on U.S. labor law.

Moreover, Kouri identifies himself as Fifth-Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. I've looked at the organization's website, and I can find no description of the duties of the Fifth-Vice President, nor an explanation of why the outfit needs (at least) five vice presidents. So where, exactly, does the Fifth-Vice President fit on the Table of Organization -- right after Miss Congeniality?

Further, the organization is a 501(c)(3) charity. That means it is absolutely prohibited from participating in partisan campaigns. This is a campaign year. Kouri is participating in partisan activity. Does the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorse his actions? If so, when is the IRS going to revoke its tax status?

The preceeding assessment of Kouri's fitness to comment on the NSA case is every bit as factual and unbiased as his assessment of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's job performance. Wonder how he likes the treatment?

Why, you might ask, do I spend so much time and energy picking at this pimple on the rump of the body politick? Because Glenn Greenwald asked me to. Well, not me specifically. He has challenged the media -- and by extension, its readers, viewers and listeners -- to push back against the pack of lies being promulgated by the Royalists to advance the cause of illegal spying on American citizens. A measure by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Cowardice) comes up for debate this week. It would retroactively pardon the Boy King and his minions for their crimes.

I'm just doing my part.

Beyond Theft -- Part Two

2006-09-03T10:48:00.000-07:00

I have already gone fearlessly on the record with my take on the Royalist strategy for the 2006 elections. Little did I know that the power behind the throne would be so blatant about the machinations he's putting in place to steal again.

"They [Karl Rove and company] have determined that control of Congress is likely to be settled in as few as six states and have decided to focus most of the party’s resources there, said Republican officials who did not want to be identified discussing internal deliberations. Those states will likely include Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington, though officials said the battle lines could shift in coming weeks." (emphasis added)

That's not exactly the list of states I suggested ("Florida. Ohio. Nebraska. All states where this year's congressional elections could turn Congress Democratic. Do not be surprised if, sometime before Election Day, 'credible and specific terrorist threats' are reported in all three states, threats so terrifying it would not be in the public interest to stage an event that would put large numbers of people in easily-identifiable, easily-targeted locations -- like polling places. So the elections will, of course, need to be cancelled. "). But it certainly fits into the same overall strategy I suggested three months ago. So to the residents of Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington, I can only say: be prepared. Make other plans for Election Day, because there is no way in Hell you're going to be allowed to cast ballots.

(Inspired by DK at TPM)

Winds of Change, or Breaking Wind?

2006-08-04T18:00:00.000-07:00

It is becoming clear, even to the crown-bedazzled clique that clogs the arteries of the nation's capital, that Americans despise their Boy King and anyone who pays him obeisance. Here's the reading from Charlie Cook, who makes his living stroking tea leaves for politicians and politial junkies (via Kos):

"In terms of the political climate, the facts are clear. All of the traditional diagnostic indicators in major national polls taken in the past 10 days show numbers consistent with an electoral rout."
[-]
"In the House, where Democrats need a 15-seat gain to win a majority, Republicans have 15 seats that the Cook Political Report currently rates as tossups. No Democratic seats remain in that column. Another 21 GOP seats are rated as leaning Republican.

"In a very large tidal wave election, as this one appears to be, it would not be unusual to see all tossups go to one party, along with a few out of the leaning column as well. Republicans might lose their House majority just in the seats in which they are behind or in which their edge is within a poll's margin of error.

"In the Senate, while it is easy to get Democrats to a four- or five-seat net gain, six is tougher. But keep in mind that in the last four non-'wave' elections, between 67 and 89 percent of the races rated as 'tossups' in the final Cook Political Report pre-election ratings broke toward one party each time, a domino effect, with the close races breaking toward the party with momentum."

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Royalist usurpers allow Americans to cast the ballots that would make the above observations become reality (an unlikely prospect, to be sure), then certainly this must be a time of great cheer for those who want desperately to see the United States become, well, the United States again. Indeed, one of the the most dependable Royalist lackeys in Washington is perched on the brink of electoral oblivion. The ground, it seems, is rumbling. Anti-Royalist forces seem to be on the march. Victory, surely, is within our grasp.

Why, then, is one of the best of Outer Blogland's stalwarts so morose? Billmon is a contrarian, to be sure. But he has good reason to scorn the ever-more popular opinion that an Anti-Royalist blow-out is in the offing:

"Having watched the consensus wisdom (now there's an oxymoron) gradually progress over the past year from laughing at the Dems' chances, to conceding that they might pick up a few seats, to seeing a 'remote chance' for a Pelosi speakership, to warning that the Republicans are in deep trouble, to now all but forecasting a 'tidal wave' election, I would advise the Dems not to take it too seriously. We live in an era in which consensus opinion is typically wrong about almost everything, not just the war in Iraq and the next American Idol winner. "

All good points, to be sure. But Billmon doesn't stop there.

"More and more, I've come to believe the Dems are insane for even wanting a share of the responsibility for running this out-of-control madhouse of a country. It's like being invited to grab hold of a downed high-voltage power line."

True enough. But let's face it, the Anti-Royalists are the opposition party. They aren't paid to sit out the process of running the country (though, God knows, they certainly haven't been earning their paychecks for the last six years). If they don't want to sully their dainty cuticles, they can change professions (I hear Fox News is hiring). For the first time in more than a decade, Americans face the prospect of electing a Congress that doesn't have as its first order of business savaging the Constitution for personal and corporate gain.

And that, Billmon warn us, is the bad news.

"At this point I really don't give a flying f**k whether the Democrats take the House or the Senate back. No, wait, that's not true. The truth is I hope they don't. It wouldn't save us from what's coming down the road, in the Middle East and elsewhere. It wouldn't force President Psychopath to change course or seek therapy. But it would make sure that the 'left' (ha ha ha) gets more than its fair share of blame for the approaching debacle.

"That may well be the natural role of the Democratic Party in our one-and-a-half party system, but I don't want any part of it any more. Which means that when I say it's a bad sign (consensus opinion always being wrong) that Charlie Cook now thinks the Republicans are likely to lose their House and/or Senate majorities in November, I just mean that it's a bad sign for the Democratic Party and its professional hangers on.

"For the rest of us, and for whatever is left of this country's soul, it doesn't really matter. We've already lost."

On first reading, those final words left me profoundly saddened. I was jolted by the prospect that such a forceful and rational voice for what is right and true could be so thoroughly disheartened by the current state of affairs that he would be willing to surrender the fight. On second reading, those words made me infuriated. Because it occurred to me Billmon may be right.

Indeed, I'll go a step further. The criminal regime that has infested this once proud nation simply won't take the chance that Royalist losses in November will impede their march toward the American Imperium. The Thug-in-Chief can't take the chance that the Congress elected this fall will perform its Constitutional duties. If Billmon is right -- that it doesn't matter, because the Democrats don't have the testosterone to stand up to the Royalist criminals -- then the November elections will proceed as they have every even-numbered year since the founding of the Republic.

But Billmon could be wrong. It is possible the Democrats will do their duty and begin dismantling the racketeer influenced criminal organization that wrested control of our government from us. And if the Clown Prince and his minions are convinced of that... well, you know what I think will happen.

Conservative = Criminal

2006-07-18T19:27:00.000-07:00

For more than a quarter century, conservatives have successfully equated liberals with everything bad about American politics. Liberals, they intone, love high taxes. Liberals, they whine, are profligate wastrels of the public treasury. Liberals, they snarl, love terrorists. Liberals, they spit, hate the troops.

After more than five years of governance by the self-avowed conservative purists of the current regime, it is now apparent that conservatives can be described in a single word: criminals.

Their record of lawlessness is well established -- accepting bribes from lobbyists, facilitating bribes from lobbyists, shaking down American Indians to bankroll right-wing religious front groups, and that's just the Jack Abramoff case. Then there's Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-San Quentin) and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (R-Indicted). Not to mention the Royal shoplifter, or the Homeland Security Department's resident pedophile. And we haven't even considered the long -- and growing -- list of war crimes this crowd has perpetrated on at least three different continents.

It is a well-worn axiom that a fish rots from the head. And it is becoming more clear that the Clown Prince-in-Chief is himself a felon. He has admitted as much in public, flaunting his willful violation of the federal laws regulating whose wires can be tapped. So it should come as no surprise that the Royal Court's resident consiglieri has let his oath of omerta slip long enough to provide a prima facie case for another Article of Impeachment. As detailed in the National Journal and elsewhere, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has pinned a rap of obstructing justice, as well as interfering with a federal investigation, squarely on the crown of His Imperial Majesty George the Biscuit Eater, who personally intervened to kill an internal investigation of the illegal domestic spying program:

"During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today, [Chairman Arlen] Specter asked Gonzales, 'Why wasn't OPR given clearances as so many other lawyers in the Department of Justice were given clearance?'
'The president of the United States makes decisions about who is ultimately given access,' Gonzales responded.
Pressing the attorney general further, Specter asked, 'Did the president make the decision not to clear OPR?'
Gonzales responded, 'As with all decisions that are non-operational in terms of who has access to the program, the president of the United States makes the decision.'"

There you go, Senator Specter -- indisputable proof that the current squatter at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has commited more crimes. Of course, Specter already knew about the Criminal-in-Chief. Indeed, he even crafted legislation about the flagrant abuse of the NSA that has been public knowledge for the last seven months. That legislation has only one goal: to make the illegal actions of the regime legal, retroactively.

Why, you might ask, would a man who makes such a show of being a maverick, who prides himself on his "morals" and "ethics" and puts them on public display at every opportunity, act as such a lapdog for the criminal regime?

It's simple. For all his protestations to the contrary, Arlen Specter is a conservative, too. And we now know what that means, don't we?

Beyond Theft

2006-06-03T08:40:00.000-07:00

The Royalist uprising that removed the American voter's role in the 2000 election was, indisputedly, the beginning of the process of abrogating the United States Constitution in perpetuity, not the end. For it was never the goal of the Royalist traitors merely to place their puppet boy on the throne. They have to keep him there by any means necessary. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is exposing the lengths to which the Royalist faction went to ensure that the will of the people was thwarted again in 2004. Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/) has posted an excerpt and a link to the entire article, and offers this conclusion:

"The real question, of course, is what will be done about it and NO! I refuse to give into fashionable cyncism! So yes, dear friends, I really do believe the country will focus like a laserbeam on our corrupt election practices. I have no doubt the moment there's a squeaker and the Republicans lose a big one by 2% or less, the MSM will ensure that election reform becomes the only subject worth talking about, even more than the civil rights of 1 day-old fertilized eggs! (Unless there's a missing young white woman that week, but that goes without saying.)"

Kennedy makes a compelling and well-substantiated case that Royalist forces in the Ohio state and local election machinery deliberately discarded enough Democratic ballots (after systmatically purging election rolls of qualified voters from Democratic precincts) to throw the election of 2004 to King George. Anyone who has been paying attenion already knew that, but it's nice to see someone actually put the words in print.

Thus, we know the Royalists took the last two presidential elections out of the hands of the people who were supposed to decide it. What about the other national election held since the 2001 coronation? In 2002, it was a dead-bolt certainty that Democrats would hold on to their one-vote majority in the Senate (for which they had ex-Republican/non-Royalist Jim Jeffords to thank) and there was a better-than-even chance they would reclaim the majority in the House. Neither happened, and, in fact, the Royalist faction gained seats in both houses, to the surprise and shock of any impartial historian.

The credit for the stunning Royalist victory of 2002 has always been placed at the feet of the royal court's resident Machiavelli, Karl Rove. It was he who turned the long-held Bush dynasty grudge against its former partner-in-crime Saddam Hussein into a "grave" and "immediate" threat to U.S. security. It was Rove who stroked the post-9/11 fears of the American people into a raging anti-Iraq fire, leaving the Democrats cowering in puddles of their own effluvia. It was, the conventional political wisdom holds, a masterful use of a single issue to weld a national consensus in favor of King George.

Maybe. But given the disenfranchisement employed (most notably) in Florida during the 2000 election and again in Ohio during 2004, isn't just as likely that the king's minions at the state and local level simply plied their devious trade in the same way, with the same results? Put it another way: if you know a man stole two television sets from you, is it unreasonable to look in his direction when a third TV goes missing?

This pattern of lawlessness -- what the criminologists call "recidivism"-- suggests this year's congressional elections will be no more fair and honest than the last three national elections have been. The same felons are in charge of the process - from the White House down. There is no reason to believe they won't pull every trick out of their bag of corruption in the effort to prop up the regime with a reliably compliant legislative branch. But this is not 2002. Or 2004.

In 2006, King George is the single most reviled person in America. If there is a unifying issue in this election, it is his brutally ruthless incompetence. Even died-in-the-wool Royalists are deserting him in droves. There is every possibility that the electorate will make a massive statement in November -- enough! With each passing day, the Royalist hold on power becomes more tenuous. Oh, they can trot out their red-meat issues -- fear of the brown people, fear of the gay people, fear of women who chose not to bear children. But in this political climate, none of them is likely to shift the balance of horror at what the king hath wrought during his reign.

With sentiment running so high and so ferevently against the regime, attempts at such thefts as perpetrated in the past three elections may be met with vehement public outrage. More to the point, they may not work. There may be a tide rising that is so strong, mere voter suppression and disenfranchisement won't be enough to turn it back. This may, in short, be an election that simply can't be stolen. What's a monarch to do?

The answer is obvious: call it off. When it becomes clear -- sometime this summer-- that there is no way, legal or otherwise, for the Royalists to maintain their grip on the U.S. Capitol, the royal court will roll out the sure-fire, can't-miss strategy that has been waiting in the wings for nearly five years. They will cancel the election.

Oh, maybe not the whole election. Maybe they'll only call off voting in specific states, those under "increased threat of terrorist attack". Indeed, they have already laid the groundwork by declaring New York undeserving of increased amounts of federal anti-terrorism money. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13082207/) If New York, which has been attacked by terrorist cells on two different occasions in the past 15 years, is not as much at risk these days, what areas are in the terrorists' sights?

Florida. Ohio. Nebraska. All states where this year's congressional elections could turn Congress Democratic. Do not be surprised if, sometime before Election Day, "credible and specific terrorist threats" are reported in all three states, threats so terrifying it would not be in the public interest to stage an event that would put large numbers of people in easily-identifiable, easily-targeted locations -- like polling places. So the elections will, of course, need to be cancelled. Well, they'll probably say the elections are "postponed" -- a temporary measure until the threat passes. Then, a few months later when the "all clear" sounds, Floridians, Ohioans and Nebraskans will be allowed to cast their ballots -- say, in the dead of winter, when turnout is comfortably low and a little ballot box stuffing will go a long way. And thus, once again, King George will have triumphed, for the Royalists will be able to hang on to their fig-leaf majorities in the House and Senate and continue rubber stamping royal decrees.

Would they get away with it? You decide -- by answering these questions: Did they get away with stealing the 2000 election? Did they get away with stealing the 2002 election? Did they get away with stealing the 2004 election? And if they do get away with it again, there will be nothing preventing Karl Rove and his clan of courtiers from carrying out the final step in their master plan:

Cancelling the 2008 election and keeping King George on the throne permanently.

On the other hand

2006-05-24T19:41:00.000-07:00

The preceding post (http://dethronekinggeorge.blogspot.com/2006/05/crocodile-tears.html) concludes the sudden attack of Constitution-loving currently afflicting the Royalist leadership in Congress is nothing but a sham. Not everyones sees it that way. The consensus in the more rationale precincts of Blogland is they are braying about "separation of powers" for one of two reasons:

1) They are trying to keep the FBI from poking into any of the rampant corruption that has been the singular hallmark of the Royalist reign in the Legislative Branch for more than a decade. Kos argues the Royalists even have enablers among their reputed opponents:

"Congress (with [Minority Leader] Pelosi's acquiesence) has proven completely unwilling and unable to police its own. It has taken several justice department investigations to begin rooting out the deep corruption in the place. It's a cesspool.
And there is NOTHING in the Constitution that places Congress above the laws faced by the rest of American citizens. If there is lawbreaking happening on Capito[l] Hill, the Justice Department is duty bound to investigate and enforce the law." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/24/20302/4409

2) The Royalists don't want the object of this most recent outrage, William Jefferson (D-Freezer) frogmarched out of the Capitol Building too quickly. Michael Tomasky at Tapped pointedly asks:

"[D]oes anyone else suspect that maybe half the reason Hastert et al. are so in heat over the Jefferson raid has nothing to do separation of powers and something to do with the fact that if they defend Jefferson and help him stay in the House, the corruption issue doesn’t cut so cleanly for Democrats?" http://www.prospect.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/664

There is a third possibility. Frist, Hastert and the entire Royalist kaffee klatch may actually believe in the principle of separation of powers and they are standing on that principle. As Matt Yglesias notes at Tapped:

"Dennis Hastert and the other congressional leaders are right on the merits here. There's a reason why security for Congress (and the Supreme Court) is provided neither by the Secret Service, nor by the FBI, nor by the DC Police Department, but rather by a special Capitol Police Department (or Supreme Court PD for the SCOTUS). This is also why the Constitution stipulates that members "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." http://www.prospect.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/663

He's right, of course. The Constitution erects a wall between the authority vested in the Executive Branch and that entrusted to the Legislative Branch (and another wall protecting the Judiciary from the other two). It is an edifice of words, of ideas, yes, of principles. Each branch is expected in our Constitutional system to respect the authority of the other two.

I might buy the "matter of principle" argument if there was a scintilla of evidence that Frist, Hastert and the happy Royalist band had ever...even once...actually conducted their public duties as if they believed in the separation of powers. They have not. At each incursion by King George into the legislative arena (see "signing statements"), the Royalist parliamentarians have risen in unison to cheer, "Hear! Hear!" At every instance when King George has ordered his minions to violate the express will of Congress (see "NSA illegal wiretapping"), then brazenly bragged in pubic about his exercise of untrammelled imperial authority, the Royalists on the Hill have positively swooned at his manly assertiveness. Each time His Majesty has thumbed his nose at the Judicial Branch (see "Jose Padilla"), Bill and Denny and the gang have linked arms to sing "God Save the King".

In other words, I'll believe Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert and their fellow travelers are acting "as a matter of principle" if they ever demonstrate they have any principles.

I'm not holding my breath.

Crocodile Tears

2006-05-23T15:20:00.000-07:00

Oh, the outrage! Oh, the hanky-wringing! Oh, the indignity! Bill Frist, John Boehner, Dennis Hastert and the whole cadre of Royalists on Capitol Hill are "shocked, shocked I tell you" that the FBI would defile the halls of Congress with its vile presence! The sheer effrontery of those Executive Branch operatives, to think they could simply sashay into the bowels of the Legislative Branch and snoop around! The notion moves the Speaker of the House to the brink of apostasy:

"The Founding Fathers were very careful to establish in the Constitution a Separation of Powers to protect Americans against the tyranny of any one branch of government. They were particularly concerned about limiting the power of the Executive Branch." http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/05/a_raid_too_far.html

This is the same gang of imperial coat-holders who have stood aside silently as other operatives of the same Executive Branch (known as agents of the NSA) have ignored the express will of the "Founding Fathers" to eavesdrop on Americans without a court order, or even a hint of probable cause. (Notable exception: Frist, who has actively encouraged this unlawful behavior by offering legislation that would make it legal...even if it's unconstitutional.) This Royalist cabal even went so far as to empower those very operatives they now profess to detest (FBI agents) to seize the records of private transactions (like use of a library card) by fiat (euphemistically known as a "National Security Letter").

But let one of them darken the door of the U.S. Capitol, even if he is carrying a duly authorized court order, and the Royalists bay like a pack of abused pomeranians.

There are those who read ulterior motives into the response:

"Remember, the Justice Department has a number of investigations targeting lawmakers and staff on the Hill. Various committees and members have received subpoenas for documents and other cooperation, and they've been reportedly dragging their feet rather than comply.
Intentionally or not, the FBI's raid could be read by other lawmakers to mean: if you don't willingly comply, we'll come take what we need. In that sense, the raid wasn't just a hit on Jefferson, it was also a warning shot across the bow of all those facing scrutiny: you could be next." http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000717.php

I, on the other hand, think that analysis gives Frist and his Fristlings too much credit. Instead, I believe this furor is calculated. It allows the Royalists to coat themselves with a patina of rspectability -- you know, makes them look like they really care what's in that Constitution none of them (apparently) has ever read. They raise a hue and cry about "separation of powers"...just like the one a few lesser Royalists (e.g., Arlen Specter) kicked up when the NSA illegal spying scandal broke. In time -- days at most -- King George will send one of his courtiers to Capitol Hill to assure the Congressional Royalists that they need never concern themselves about being the target of such heavy-handed tactics. Those are reserved only for the disloyal (and anti-Royal). Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if, by this time next week, Frist is proposing legislation to set up a special private FBI entrance to the Capitol.

For the time being, though, they must keep up appearances. They must toss around phrases they neither comprehend nor respect, like "separation of powers" and "tyranny of any one branch of government". Those are not words to the true Royalists. They are the verbal equivalent of crocodile tears.

The Deck Is Fully Stacked

2006-05-16T08:04:00.000-07:00

Kudos to Glenn Greenwald for his thorough exposure of the inherent cowardice of King George and his minions. Despite all their protestations of "unitary executive" and "inherent authority", the Bushites have done everything they can to prevent any court of competent jurisdiction from ever ruling on the legality of their actions. They kicked Jose Padilla out of the "enemy combatant corps" just in time to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing his arrest and incarceration. They short-circuited the secret FISA court to avoid having to answer any questions about the NSA's electronic vacuum cleaner projects. The lists goes on, and Glenn chronicles them all at his blog "Unclaimed Territory" http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/. Most recently, he notes, the royalists on the Senate Judiciary Committee have blackmailed Chairman Arlen Specter into dropping a provision from his proposed FISA "reform" (which in itself renders FISA meaningless) that would have required the secret court to review the NSA warrant-free snooping and rule on its legality. As Glenn notes:

"One would think that if they really believed that they had the clear-cut legal justification for warrantless eavesdropping which they claim to have, they would be eager to have a court rule on this issue so that this unpleasant controversy -- with all of these mean-spirited and utterly baseless allegations of lawbreaking -- can finally be put to rest. And yet, time and again, they do precisely the opposite: they desperately invoke every available measure to prevent any judicial ruling as to the legality of their behavior." http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/gop-senators-block-judicial-review-of.html#links

But I wonder if all this legal shell-gamesmanship isn't just a stalling tactic. During the first four years of his reign, King George had to contend with those flaming liberals Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. But not any more. John Roberts, inventor of the "presidential signing statement" that has rendered all acts of Congress null and void, and Samuel Alito, who never met a police power he didn't like, are on the high bench now. And they are making life so much easier for those in charge. In an Ohio case, the new Chief Justice writes:

"State taxpayers have no standing... to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers." http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/14587337.htm

Let's allow that to soak in a moment. What Roberts is saying is that "We the People" no longer have any stake in the actions of government. If a taxpayer cannot challenge the "tax or spending decisions" of the government, then the taxpayer can challenge NO decisions of the government. It's as simple as that. For there is no decision made by any level of government that isn't, at its heart, a decision about taxation or appropriation. Whether it's a city council decision on"use rates" for the municipal water utility, or $109 billion to fund a war or two (or, apparently, three in the near future), every action of every government turns on its power to raise and spend money.

And with a single sentence, the Roberts court has cut all American citizens out of all those decisions. Never mind those First Amendment niceties about "the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Under the current regime, the people have no "standing" to seek "redress". The courthouse doors are locked to them.

We might take some solace in the integrity of the court as an institution had this case been decided on a 5-4 vote, with vigorous dissents from the so-called "liberal" members of the bench. But it wasn't. The ruling in DailmerChrysler v. Cumo was unanimous. Not one justice objected to the Roberts assertion that "taxpayers have no standing...to challenge state tax and spending decisions". (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg merely expresses "reservations" in a concurring opinion.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1704.pdf (.pdf file)

Here, then, is the plain evidence King George has been awaiting. The Supreme Court is finally, and fully, his for the asking. The Justices see no reason to listen to the pleas of average Americans who have been wronged by their government, for they have no standing to challenge any government action. The Cumo decision is the green light. The Supreme Court has become, for all intents and purposes, the Royal Court, and the monarch may do as he pleases.

Wish I'd Said That

2006-05-14T10:25:00.000-07:00

One of the best wordsmiths in Blog Nation nails a fundamental issue in the scandal over illegal spying by King George. Noting the first flurry of public opinion polls shows wildly variant levels of support for the NSA's latest outrage, Billmon gets right to the point:

"The whole point of having civil liberties is that they are not supposed to be subject to a majority veto. Hobbes may not have believed in natural rights, but our founders did. And their opponents, the anti-Federalists, were even more zealous about restraining the powers of the federal superstate, which is why they forced the Federalists to write the Bill of Rights directly into the Constitution.
It defeats the purpose of having a 4th Amendment if its validiity is entirely dependent on breaking 50% in the latest poll. It would be nice to have 'the people' on our side in this debate, and obviously a lot of them are, even if [a] plurality still prefers Leviathan's crushing embrace. But some things are wrong just because they're wrong -- not because a temporary majority (or even a permanent one) thinks they're wrong."
http://www.billmon.org/

The British mathematician and social critic Bertrand Russell is credited with these words of wisdom: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Pollsters, of course, are tone deaf to this truism.

The NSA phone records database is doubly illegal. It is against the law for the government to collect those records without a search warrant, and it is illegal for the phone companies to surrender those records without being presented with a search warrant. And that has been true since 1934. Yet an "instant poll" conducted for the Washington Post and ABC News (both of whom should know better) found 63% of those surveyed find collection of phone records "acceptable". And 66% professed it would not "bother" them to learn their own phone records had been collected. At no point, however, were respondents informed that the collection of those records was a violation of federal law. Might that change their reaction?

Of course it would:

"In the latest Newsweek Poll, a majority of Americans polled, 53 percent, believe that reports that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the 9/11 terrorist attacks to create a database of calls 'goes too far in invading people's privacy,' while 41 percent feel it is 'a necessary tool to combat terrorism.' In light of this news and other actions by the Bush-Cheney administration, 57 percent of Americans say they have gone too far in expanding presidential power, while only 38 percent say they have not." http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060514/nysu010.html?.v=55

So which is it? Billmon's point is this: it doesn't matter. Our liberties are not protected by the prevailing winds of public opinion, nor by the empty promises of the political party in power. They are protcted by the Constitution of the United States, whether King George feels obligated to acknowledge that or not.

One can be sure of this: when the Bushies start showing up in the dock as criminal defendants, they will all demand the same Constitutional protections they are now so vigorously trying to take away from the rest of us.

Headlines We Don't See

2006-05-13T10:19:00.000-07:00

A singular, astonishing and apparently unprecedented event occurred on Friday. The FBI raided CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Think about that for a moment. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is gathering evidence of crimes so momentous, it sent agents into the sanctum sanctorum of the United States Intelligence Community.

Not that you'd ever know it from the media coverage. Almost universally, TV and newspaper reports are couched in the jargon of law enforcement. The Bureau, we are told, was "executing search warrants" at a home and an office in suburban Virginia. Buried very deep in the reporting is the information that the office was inside the CIA. And almost as an afterthought, we are informed the home belongs to Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a career CIA official who runs the agency's day-to-day operations.

"Executing search warrants" is cop-talk for "raid". When the G-men kick in the doors of an Italian-American social club, they are "executing search warrants". When ATF agents stormed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, armed with assault rifles and shielded by body armor, they were "executing search warrants".

When reporters characterize the FBI operations in Virginia in those terms, they are, in effect, concealing the truth. Fortunately, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press wasn't afraid to call a raid a raid (and the Houston Chronicle wasn't afraid to print his account):

"A growing contracting scandal took a dramatic turn at the CIA with raids on the office and home of the agency's departing No. 3 official...Investigators from five federal agencies acted under search warrants at Foggo's home in Vienna, Va., and his office at the CIA's Langley, Va., campus." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3861114.html

I can't think of another instance in the history of the CIA that federal agents have shown up with search warrants. Lord knows, there have been sufficient reasons over the years to send the feds into the bowels of Langley, but I can't recall it actually happening. (I would appreciate anyone correcting my recollection on this point.)

Despite the extraordinary nature of Friday's events, I haven't found a single media outlet that boiled them down to the simple, declarative phrase, "FBI Radis CIA". Even the Houston paper cited above weaseled out on the headline ("Feds Search Home, Office of CIA Official"). Time was -- not so very long ago -- no newspaper editor in America could have resisted the short, eye-grabbing headline "FBI Raids CIA". In this day of 24-hour cable TV news with its screen-crowding headline crawls, the punchy, three word phrase would be a natural. Yet it never appeared.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. In December, President Bush, for the first time in his presidency, delivered his weekly radio address on live television. During that speech, he revealed that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens without search warrants on more than 30 occasions. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (even as amended after 9/11) makes electronic eavesdropping on American citizens without a search warrant a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. So when Bush confirmed he had ordered the surveillance, he was admitting he had committed at least 30 felonies, and is liable for up to 150 years in prison. (The potential sentence is much higher, since each individual illegal wiretap authorized is a separate offense, and there were apparently hundreds authorized each time Bush gave the order.)

I watched Bush's performance that day in utter astonishment. Never before has any president of the United States publicly declared he has violated the U.S. Criminal Code. Even Richard Nixon went to his grave professing his innocence. Ronald Reagan never even entertained the notion that his illegal activities (lumped together under the catch-all title "Iran-Contra") might somehow have run afoul of the law. Not even Warren Harding had the hubris to stand up before the American people and admit that he -- and his Cabinet officers -- were felons.

But George Bush did. Not only did he confess his crimes, Bush proudly proclaimed he would keep committing them, and asserted that no one could stop him. What a headline that would have made! Alas, it never appeared, in the U.S. print or broadcast media. How could they resist, I wonder, these defenders of "the truth without fear or favor"? Think of the papers it would have sold. Imagine the ratings spike. I can even see it now -- a glitzy animation with appropriately stately drum-and-bugle background music, a rippling Stars and Stripes emblazoned with the words:

Bush Confesses

But it was not to be. Our media companies have become so timerous in the face of government authority that they dare not speak truth to power. Or even, it seems, to the powerless -- the American people.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

2006-05-11T19:46:00.000-07:00

In 1998, the House of Representatives set the bar for presidential conduct when it approved Articles of Impeachment. Just what did the House condemn?

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice...

Article One http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=456

That's pretty clear language, isn't it? The House makes it clear that a sitting president is not permitted to violate "his constitutional oath of ofice to execute the office...and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..." Nor is he permitted to "willfully corrup[t] and manipulat[e] the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration...", nor is "impeding the administration of justice" permissable behavior. Indeed, such activities are so injurious to the Republic that Clinton was charged with doing them all twice (Articles One and Two).

In Article Three, the House tells us, Clinton also "has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a...duly instituted judicial proceeding." Further, Article Four asserts, Clinton "impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth—seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding..."

(Articles Two and Four failed to win majority votes in the House.)

Ah, but those were different times. Certainly the current members of the House would never hold the current president to the same standard, would they? Perhaps we should ask Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, Majority Whip Roy Blunt and Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. They voted "Aye" on all four Articles in 1998. And what of the Senate? Would Majority Leader Bill Frist agree that the behavior described in the Clinton Articles of Impeachment still consitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"? He certainly thought so then, since he voted to convict on both. What about Senator John McCain? Would he hold all presidents to the same standard he voted to impose on Clinton? Would either Frist or McCain swear an oath to avoid such behavior if either is ever elected president?

The answer should be clear -- indeed, all Americans would agree that a president should never violate his constitutional oath, manipulate or corrupt the judicial process, delay or impede a duly constituted investigation, or contravene the authority of the legislative branch. Well, maybe not all Americans. King George doesn't consider such actions worthy of impeachment. Indeed, they are the hallmarks of his term in office. And such upholders of our constitutional system as Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Sensenbrenner, Frist, McCain, et. al., apparently agree. Not one of them has so much as entertained the notion that a president who confesses to committing dozens of felonies should be considered in violation of his oath. Indeed, they dismiss any talk of holding the current president accountable for his crimes as "extreme." Frist says even suggesting a censure of the president is "crazy". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200877.html

If that's what they say now, when the president has admitted breaking the law, and dfiantly proclaimed his intention to continue breaking it so long as he reigns, what does that make them? And what did it make them in 1998 and 1999 when they voted to remove from office a president they were convinced had broken the law?

"Can you hear me now? Good (NOT)!"

2006-05-11T16:35:00.000-07:00

Times of London reports on the latest illegal snooping by King George and his lackeys:

The programme is significantly different from — and potentially far more damaging politically than the secret, warrantless wiretapping programme revealed in December. That involved monitoring calls and e-mails in which one party was abroad. Polls consistently showed that a significant majority of Americans backed Mr Bush on that because they believed it specifically targeted terror suspects. (Actually, that is NOT what the polls say.)
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, told The Times: “There is a very fine line between national security and personal oppression. The public is prepared to accept a degree of intelligence intervention but this may have crossed the line. I think a majority of Americans will be opposed to this.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2176605,00.html

Okay, friends, let's review:

The president assures us no one is listening in on all our phone calls. They're only monitoring who we call, who calls us and how long we talk to each other -- without any of that messy court paperwork the law requires. They want to know who's talking to whom and for how long because that information can reveal patterns that lead them to (what else?) terrorists. Once they spot such a pattern, the NSA can immediately start monitoring the calls themselves -- again, without any court order -- in an effort to find an "evildoer" on one end of the call, or the other. Said evildoer can then be abducted from his/her home, a public street, an airport or anywhere, frankly, and whisked off to a U.S. military base, to be held without charge and without legal counsel. Or, perhaps, said evildoer will be whisked off to a secret prison operated by the CIA in eastern Europe. Or simply transferred to the custody of a friendly country (Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, the list goes on) with a less than firm grasp on the concept of "human rights". There the evildoer will remain until either 1) interrogators using creative tactics extract important information about terrorism, 2) interrogators using creative tactics extract a confession about terrorism, or 3) said evildoer dies. All without any of that messy court paperwork that so bogs down the crusaders for freedom in the United States government.

Even though federal law prohibits the government from finding out who you call, who calls you and how long you talk without a court order; from monitoring your phone calls without a court order; from abducting you; from incarcerating you without charge or legal counsel; from sending you abroad to face torture, King George has ordered all of those acts (and more) carried out in his name -- and yours. Why?

Mission Statement

2006-05-11T16:14:00.000-07:00

Dethrone King George is dedicated to the proposition that no one -- not even the president of the United States -- is above the law. We shall use every means at our disposal to expose the lawlessness of the current holder of that title, and to bring him and his minions to account for their crimes.