It's time to connect the dots. Is George W. Bush looking for an opportunity to invoke National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51? This directive places all governmental powers in Bush's hands should "predictions" by Chertoff, Ron Paul et al come to pass.A single phrase --unitary executive --makes of George W. Bush an absolute dictator in the event of a "national emergency", say, a terrorist attack which only GOPPERS have, of late, been predicting amid much salivation and thinly disguised glee.
This extremist, radical right wing interpretation of the powers of the presidency makes of a dumbass an absolute dictator! It should alarm you that this concept is championed by the conservative Federalist Society. It puts into Bush's hands all the powers of the Presidency, the legislature and, most significantly, the judiciary. The law becomes what Bush says it is. Terrorism is what Bush says it is. Let me make this clear: you will no longer have the right to plead not guilty to any crime should Bush decide that you are a "terrorist".
Given the "noise", the flack, the numerous oddly placed predictions and gut feelings, I believe that this criminal administration is at work planning the absolute dictatorship that George W. Bush so obviously covets and has so obviously planned since stealing his first election.
This would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...heh heh heh ...so long as I'm the dictator!Recently --A flurry of ominous, numerous warnings about imminent terrorist attacks by al Qaeda on US soil and, at the same time, we get irrefutable confirmation of my thesis: terrorism is always worse during GOP administrations even as Bush claims the authority to wage war on US citizens! I have the FBI stats to prove my case and, most recently, a US State Department report that worldwide terrorism is up 30% since Bush attacked Iraq.--George W. Bush
The latest warning is from the State Department.Paul Craig Roberts: A Wake-up Call
This is a wake-up call that we are about to have another 9/11-WMD experience. The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection....
Significantly, ABC reports states that the "reports" resemble "warnings and intelligence" received by the Bush administration just before 911.ABC News: Secret Document: US Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned
And yet another:Rick Santorum predicts some unfortunate events will give Americans a very different view of this war
Yesterday, on the Hugh Hewitt show, former PA Senator Rick Santorum made references to learning the lessons of 9-11 and the recent 'attacks' in England. Then when asked by Hewitt whether he felt the leading Republican Presidential candidates were speaking with enough "seriousness" about the war, Santorum proceeded to say that a lot was going to change in the next year.
The old 911 magic may be gone forever as a method of pulling Bush's sorry fat out of the fire. I would hope that the planners of state sponsored terrorism would keep that fact in mind. It is because Bush has never been more reviled and less popular that he is coiled to strike back at a people whom he says he has a right war against i.e. the American people. It was in those early days of Bush's failed occupancy, as you may recall, that Bush boasted: "Lucky me! I just won the trifecta". 911 propelled Bush to the heights of public approval amid promises that he would smoke out Bin Laden and bring him to justice. He would treat the nations who nurture terrorism as terrorists themselves. Empty promises from a proven liar! Bush did none of those things. It was all empty GOP rhetoric that must not work again.'something's in the works' to trigger a police state
Muriel Kane
Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.
Published: Thursday July 19, 2007
He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
"I don't actually think they're very strong," said Roberts of his words. "I get a lot of flak that they're understated and the situation is worse than I say. ... When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] ... there's no check to it. It doesn't have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. ... The American people don't really understand the danger that they face." ...
[See: the FBI has recently stated that there was never hard evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with the events of 911 anyway; Google search: NO HARD EVIDENCE] We should also add that there is also no hard evidence whatsoever in support of Bush's official conspiracy theories of 911.
What are we to make of Homeland Security Chief getting a "gut feeling" that the US will be attacked "this summer" because, as he says of al Qaeda "Summertime seems to be appealing to them"? What a very odd thing to say!
Wait a minute! Didn't the liars of the Bush administration continue to deny that there were warnings until they were forced to admit and release the August PDB [President's Daily Briefing] entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US"? To this day, we would not have known about that briefing if the liars of the Bush administration had not been forced to cough it up by the 911 Commission.Chertoff bases warning of terror risk on 'gut feeling'
Homeland chief says he's offering an assessment, not a prediction
By E.A. TORRIEROMcClatchy-Tribune
CHICAGO — Fearing complacency among the American people over possible terror threats, US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Chicago on Tuesday that the nation faces a heightened chance of an attack this summer.
"I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk," Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board in an unusually blunt and frank assessment of America's terror threat level.
"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaeda. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities."
I am highly suspicious of Chertoff's timing coming as it does when the Bush administration is the only entity to benefit from such an attack, when Bush has claimed that he has the authority to wage war on US citizens, when Bush seems itching to sign Directive 51 which makes him an absolute dictator.
Assume for a moment that al Qaeda is involved in some way with the misnamed "insurgency" in Iraq. What would it have to gain by attacking the US now when the US is bogged down in a killing field. Such an attack makes no sense. Bona fide terrorists have Bush where "they" want him --bogged down in swamp just as the French cavalry was bogged down at Agincourt and, later, at Crecy.
Chertoff's remarks also remind one of the Anthrax attacks on Congressional Democrats. As you may recall, Sens Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were "obstructing" the passage of Bush's "Patriot" Act which would give him near dictatorial powers. In the current case, Chertoff himself criticized Congress' recent failure to pass an immigration bill. He claims it has negative repercussions for homeland security and will lead to continued federal crackdowns on illegal immigrants.
Coupled with a warning from the "gut", it all sounds like a threat to the very rule of law!
Chertoff alone might not be taken seriously but for two ominous factors:- He speaks for an administration that cannot be otherwise believed.
- His "gut feeling" comes closely just days before a similar warning by an eminent Republican seeking the Oval Office, Congressman Ron Paul.
Amid this abnormally high level of GOP faux hysteria, we get proof that terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes and even more so because of Bush's quagmire in Iraq.Ron Paul warns of a staged terror attack
Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the US government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.
The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.
"We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the US is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.
During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."
An increase of almost 30 percent is reported worldwide since 2006. US officials say the increase is due to growing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq --two nations attacked by Bush who claimed he was waging a war on terrorism.US State Department admits: Terrorist attacks have increased 29%
Thanks to the GOP, US claims to empire ring hollow. Ronald Reagan's was a failed regime which "tripled the national deficit and doubled the bureaucracy. The US has been a debtor nation since. Thanks to Ronald Reagan's, the US no longer leads the world in automotive or steel manufacture. Reagan waged a war on porn but another on labor itself. The porn war he lost, the war on labor, he won. He hollowed out the nation's industrial base at a time of conspicuous consumption the likes of which the world had not seen since the last days of the Roman Empire. And, like Rome, the gaudy spectable was confined to the uppper one percent of the nation. If the GOP elite consumes like there is no tomorrow, there may, indeed, be no tommorrow.
Surviving with an internationally propped up dollar, the GOP exports the only thing its good at: industrialized murder on a scale not seen since Adolph Hitler partnered with I.G. Farben and Prescott Bush, the Shrub's grandfather.
I believe in freedom of speech and the right to dissent. But the GOP has repeatedly crossed the line between politics and organized crime, between protest and assault and battery. There is probable cause to investigate the GOP leadership. It is no longer a political party; it's a crime syndicate. There is reason to believe that his criminal organization is up to something that will make the Florida election theft look like a high school prank, though it was, in fact, a felony described by US Criminal Codes. It's called "seditious conspiracy".
I am increasingly concerned that a desperate Bush, a desperate GOP will attack US citizens and blame an increase in terrorism clearly caused by GOP imperialism, stupidity, incompetence and just ordinary run-o-the-mill treachery! I am not alone in my concern. Just recently, GOP Presidential hopeful Ron Paul, with whom I have very little in common politically, fears the government itself will strike US citizens and blame terrorists.
Who is going to believe that prostrate Iraq, occupied by the world's "lone superpower" is going to mount an attack against the US unassisted by the liar George W. Bush? Certainly, we must put the previous story in context, beside the statements made recently by a candidate for the office of President:Report warns of Iraq-based terrorist strike in US
WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda is still plotting a major attack on the United States and will "probably" use its Iraqi affiliate, a combat-tested terrorist group that sprang up after the 2003 US-led invasion, to carry it out, a new US intelligence report warned Tuesday.
The National Intelligence Estimate made it clear that Osama bin Laden's militant Islamic network, bolstered by the Iraq war and growing anti-US anger in the Muslim world, remains a potent danger nearly six years after President Bush launched his "Global War on Terror" in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The United States faces "a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years," said the NIE, an authoritative analysis representing the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies.
If war is waged on US citizens this summer, it will be because a delusional, rogue "President" has arrogated unto himself the "authority" to do it.Secret Document: US Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned
A secret US law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.
"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told ABCNews.com.
US officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point."...
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff declined to comment specifically on the report today, but said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa."
Do you really think that this megalomaniacal egoist of no talent and less intelligence is kidding?
Do you really think the GOP has mounted a full court press because they have seen the errors of their evil ways and are demanding that the US give Iraq back to the Iraqis?
Do you really think that the GOP having gambled sold their souls and gambled their entire lives by throwing in with a war criminal will go quietly into that good night amid the emerging truth about how the GOP conspired with Bush and big oil to trash the Constitution and the rule of law?
Do you really believe that the GOP will suddenly embrace the light when all is dark and getting darker?
As Mr "T" used to say: "I pity the fool...."
Additional resourcesConspiracy To Defraud the United States
Misrepresenting the Truth in Order to Sell a War is A “High Crime”
by Elizabeth de la Vega
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than twenty years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in The Nation, the Los Angeles Times and Salon.
The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment of any President or Vice President who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This applies to any serious abuses of power, whether or not they are actually crimes, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney have clearly committed numerous specific federal crimes while in office. This article focuses on a Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371).
What is a conspiracy to defraud the United States?
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is a specific federal crime prohibited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Put simply, it is an agreement to use deceit and misrepresentation to “obstruct or impair” the normal functioning of government. It has been charged numerous times, including against defendants in the Watergate case and the Iran/contra scandal.
How do you prove a criminal conspiracy?
A criminal conspiracy is defined in the law as simply an agreement to commit a crime, but you don’t have to show that people wrote out an agreement or even explicitly said, “let’s do this criminal act…” Conspiracies are proved by evidence of what people do and say, both publicly and behind the scenes.
Isn’t that “circumstantial evidence?”
Yes it is and, as judges tell juries in courtrooms around the country every day, circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence.What does it mean “to defraud?”
To defraud means to attempt to influence people to go along with your proposal by using deceit. The attempt does not actually have to succeed. The crime is complete once a person uses misrepresentation with the intent to provide a false picture. “Fraud” includes deliberate misrepresentations, outright lies, half-truths and statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. Bush and Cheney used all of these methods to convince the public and Congress to agree to their plan to invade Iraq.
What are some examples of Bush’s and Cheney’s misrepresentations?
Bush, Cheney and their top aides made hundreds of misrepresentations to deceitfully convince people to accept their plan. Here are a few examples:
- Deliberate Misrepresentation- The linking of Iraq and 9/11
A deliberate misrepresentation is a statement or set of statements that might not be false in and of themselves, but are presented so as to give a false impression. In the case of the Bush/Cheney conspiracy to defraud, the best example of this is their repeated linking of Saddam or Iraq to the “lessons of 9/11.” The Bush administration used this device so often that it’s clear that it was a calculated and deliberate effort to provide a false impression that the two were linked -- even though, as Bush has admitted, they knew there was no link. It is no defense to a charge of fraud based on deliberate misrepresentation that the person’s statement was not literally false.- Outright Lie- “Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in.”
Before the war, and as recently as March 21, 2006, President Bush said we invaded Iraq because “Saddam would not let the UN inspectors in.” That is an outright lie. The UN inspectors reported to the Security Council on March 7, 2003 that, although the process was not perfect, Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the inspections, the UN team thought the process was working, and they wanted to complete it. President Bush told the UN inspectors to leave within 48 hours on March 16, 2003.- Half-truth- “Saddam’s son-in-law told us about biological and chemical Weapons.”
One of the half-truths most often repeated by Cheney, in particular, was that “we” (the U.S.) knew there were biological and chemical weapons, because Saddam’s son-in-law, Kamel Hussein, told U.S. agents about them when he defected. Apart from the fact that Kamel made these statements in 1995, so they proved nothing about the existence of weapons in 2003, Cheney only told half the story. The other half was that Kamel had said that they had destroyed the weapons, a fact confirmed by U.N. and U.S. inspectors.- Reckless Disregard - “Iraq is a Grave and Gathering Danger”
In criminal law, statements made with reckless disregard as to whether they are true or false are considered fraudulent. In other words, the law imposes a duty upon people who are trying to influence others to make important life decisions -- such as investments, large purchases, medical decisions, or, of course, agreeing to a war -- to make assertions only if they are actually backed up by facts, especially when the people speaking are seen as authority figures, such as the President and Vice President. So every time Bush and Cheney made statements such as “Iraq is a grave and gathering danger” or “We know there are weapons of mass destruction,” they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. If they had done their due diligence and examined the reports of our own intelligence community, they would have known that these statements were seriously in question, if not outright false. If they did not complete any due diligence before making the statements, they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way it’s fraud.Does it Matter Whether Bush and Cheney actually believed there were WMD?
No, in criminal law it is not a defense to fraud that a person subjectively, that is, in his own mind, believed that the scheme would all work out, if he makes fraudulent misrepresentations in order to get people to go along with it. In other words, you can’t trick people into going along with your ideas, just because you think the ideas are good.
How was government “impaired and obstructed?”
Bush and Cheney’s fraudulent misrepresentations about the true state of affairs in Iraq was designed to convince the public to believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat. They needed to convince the public that there was a dire emergency in order to convince Congress to authorize funds for the war. This scheme of misrepresentation obstructed the workings of government in a critical way -- it caused the most serious of governmental decisions to be made upon false information.
Doesn’t Congress have an obligation to question the president?
Congress does have an obligation to question the president, but that is a political issue. Congress’ inadequate response to the president’s fraud does not get the Bush administration off the hook for purposes of deciding whether they committed a crime. Courts always tell juries that persons charged with fraud cannot claim that their victims were too gullible, or should have known better.
See Also
- Chertoff remark on terror risk elicits little alarm
- It was like watching a baby seal get clubbed, except I enjoyed it
- Earth to Bush: “The Chaos in Iraq You Now Decry was Caused By You!”
- Townsend: ‘I Don’t Know’ If Al Qaeda Was In Iraq Before The War
- The Indictment of Bush and Cheney
- The Conspiracy to Defraud [the people of] the United States
The Existentialist Cowboy
Conservative Lies
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Bush
Spread the word:
12 comments:
When the next terrorist attack happens, from whatever source, American liberties will be at extreme risk.
Learn what could happen when the United States is hit by another terrorist attack by Islamic extremists that creates an extreme response by Washington in The Final Presidential Executive Order at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve14.htm
This is a fictional case study from a new free online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution” & read how the government reaction to another attack could dramatically curtail personal, financial, religious and civil liberties in the United States.
Ron Holland is Editor of FreedomFest News at http://www.freedomfest.com/news.htm
Len, thank you for creating such a wonderful blog, and for interacting with us, on our comments. You, are always very thoughtful, and kind.
Regarding a pending attack, I fear Bush, I don't think its will, Bush set off a terrorist attack, rather when.
You are absolutely right, the GOP will go right along in order to survive. But, you know in the end they won't and neither will Bush. Of course, I don't believe we would ever be a Nation again, and would we want to.
I have mentioned prior to this, that I tried to engage, both Congressman Brad Sherman, and The head of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, neither of these individuals wanted to talk about these, Security Directives Directives, by Bush. Congressman Sherman said, he was unaware of these Directives, Len, this was three weeks after Bush put them into effect. He did say nothing was going to stop the elections, right.
The awful truth is 9/11 was staged. Where is the Boeing 757-sized hole at the Pentagon? In fact, where is the Boeing 757? - http://i12.tinypic.com/6c7rm6t.jpg
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project.
"When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."
G.W. (Jerry) Longspaugh, MS Aerospace Engineering (1942 - 2006) – Retired Aerospace Engineer.
"The debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001."
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial airline pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.
"It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
Hundreds of Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, engineers, architects, professors and survivors question 9/11:
www.patriotsquestion911.com
Great comments, all of you...and thanks for visiting.
Anonymous..thanks for the links. A busy day here, but will explore them as the Swiss Federation is of considerable interest to me.
Diane_b,
thanks for the kind words. As George Carlin said: there are some things that are pissing me off! The GOP is one of them. What an absurd and stupid party --a crime syndicate trying to convince us that they are legit! Last time I checked, free speech does not immunize one from prosecution for racketeering!
Anonymous said...
The awful truth is 9/11 was staged.
But some 3,000 folk are still dead! Either Bush actively helped plan it --or he sat on his ass with the foreknowledge that we all know he had and still did nothing! There is a special place in hell!
Hundreds of Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, engineers, architects, professors and survivors question 9/11:
And the list is growing. Bush is the most absurd conspiracy theorist but expects the rest of us to swallow an an incredible series of unbelievable coincidences. Thanks for the URL.
The US has been without credible leadership since 1980. However, I give Bill Clinton high marks for givin' it his best shot.
Many think his Presidency is forever stained...uh...(bad word choice. That was the blue dress) IT was not Monica who sullied Clinton's administration. It was Waco, an abominable abrogation of Due Process of Law more at home in the Soviet Union or Nazi GTermany than in America.
Even so---Bush has taken the US to the very edge of oblivion.
To give Bush credit, he is not going after Bin Laden for a reason. Even the FBI has got nothing on him surrounding the events of 9/11. Go on, check their most wanted list.
I'm trying not to be paranoid about all this but the way the Administration is managing the information is far too obvious to ignore.
Either they know that an attack will take place are will allow it to happen through benign neglect or they have something else in mind in which fear will play a big part. (It might have already happened...maybe they needed the talking points to use against Reid during the fillibuster).... It could be that simple...
Be watchful it can't hurt.
romunov said...
To give Bush credit, he is not going after Bin Laden for a reason.
The thing to remember about the Bush administration is this: NOTHING that Bush has ever said about anything at anytime has ever been true in anyway.
They never had anything on Bin Laden and al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. Salem Bin Laden was even an investor in George W. Bush's "Arbusto" drilling company which went bust-to, leaving investor holding the bag.
Bin Laden had been a CIA "asset". what I would like to know is --when did he STOP working with or for the CIA? There is no evidence that he ever did.
The second thing to remember: Ron Paul is talking about an attack STAGED by our own government! Paul knows what he's talking about. It is significant that its the GOP that doing all the warning and while he may be a liberterian in spirit, Ron Paul is still a GOPPER and he still wants to abolish the only federal program that has EVER turned a "profit" ---SOCIAL SECURITY!
Listen up! Despite what GOPPERS and Ron Paul will tell you about it, Social Security IS NOT BROKEN! And it is not broke but will be if the GOP ever gets its greedy hands on it. The GOP would love to spend YOUR Social Security money on wars of aggression that benefit ONLY the big evil oil companies.
The GOP will break Social Security so that they will have a pretext to attack it and "privatize it", that is, turn it over the robber barons of Wall Street.
Your Social Security monies WILL NEVER BE SAFE as long as the the GOP continues to exist in its present form.
Social Security is far from a dead issue. Where do you think the monies to pay for the Iraq war are coming from? Our dishonest governments have always considered it their right to RAID Social Security revenues though the original act had always intended that those monies were not to be use to cover government expenses. SS was supposed to be off the ledger and self-sustaining. That it hasn't worked out that way is because our government is a government of liars and THIEVES.
hizzoner said...
I'm trying not to be paranoid about all this but the way the Administration is managing the information is far too obvious to ignore.
It's bloody obvious. Even Ron Paul says he suspects the next terrorist attack will be "staged by the government". 911 was, likewise, bloody obvious but for the media which actually changed their stories even as the events were unfolding. Reporters describing the tower collapses, as they were happening, said flat out that they were controlled demolitions. It was only later, upon information that can easily be shown to have been false, did media change to the "official conspiracy theory".
Regarding the presidential directive giving George Bush dictatorial powers in the event of an "emergency", I surmise it's legal under the small print somewhere in the Patriot Act.
And if George Bush did assume these powers in an "emergency", would the Congress, particularly its Democratic members, raise objections?
If the Democrats don't raise a fuss after the existence of this directive becomes known to the general public (but will the public even care?) we can probably assume the Democrats will roll over and play dead should Bush ever assume these extraordinary powers
Christopher I said...
Regarding the presidential directive giving George Bush dictatorial powers in the event of an "emergency", I surmise it's legal under the small print somewhere in the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act itself is about 99 percent unconstitutional but, until there is a case, we can't get a ruling. We are stuck with this bloody carbuncle. Secondly, Bush has packed the court which I don't trust to rule based upon the law and precedent. I suspect that Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts can be depended upon to rule disingenuously. Their opinions will sound like Alberto Gonzales, lying to Congress, demonstrating either an appalling ignorance of the law or a cynical calculation that the American people are so stupid they will let him get away with it. A case in point: Bushies say the legal standard in the Fourth Amendment is "reasonable suspicion" not "probable cause". That's bullshit! And all one need to is simply read the damn thing! As follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. --Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Gen. Hayden, for example, stubbornly persists in insisting that "probable cause" is not the legal standard EVEN when a reporter read it aloud in the presence of the press corp. Shessh! As I said, either these people are just moronically stupid, they just don't give a shit, or they think we are all as stupid as they are.
Another case in point: Presidential signing statements. The Constitution does not grant the office of President the power and/or authority to rewrite laws passed by Congress. In other words, the President may not rule by decree. But, I fear, we don't have a court that will rule according to the law. This court should be feared. The ideologues will work backward from preconceived notions as did the Bush v Gore court, which handed down the very worst decision since Dredd Scott. Bush v Gore simply was not based upon the Fourteenth as the five ideologues so disingenuously insisted. It was a completely novel interpretation, the 14th cited merely as a PRE-TEXT to take the case. The court's ulterior motives are betrayed by two irrefutable facts: 1) Having cited the 14th, the justices utterly failed to provide a remedy in their ruling consistent with the 14th. 2) The decision UTTERLY FAILED to explain HOW the granting of the election to Bush IN ANY WAY addressed or remedied the problem cited as pretext to take the case. In other words, the court provided no remedy consistent with the 14th though it was cited by them. If you bring a lawsuit in any other court, you would at least expect the judge to rule on YOUR case, not merely use it a platform to launch into a diatribe about something else entirely. You would at least expect the judge to rule on whether your claims are consistent with the facts in evidence. SCOTUS pointed to some mythical failure to comply with the 14th, yet FAILED to issue a ruling that might provide a remedy. The court set aside a lawfully mandated process that would have resulted in the election of Al Gore, a process that was entirely consistent with Florida law, a process, in fact, mandated by a Florida State Judge with regard to Florida's own state laws.
SCOTUS could not even defend its reasons for interfering with a state observing its own state laws as prescribed by state laws and the US Constitution.
Significantly, SCOTUS did NOT rule that the Florida judge was in any way in violation of Federal laws or had, in any way, trespassed upon Federal jurisdiction. But that did not keep SCOTUS from setting aside a decision over which it had absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever. [hence the BS about the 14th. I smell Scalia behind this horsehit!] Elections are the affairs of states.
And if George Bush did assume these powers in an "emergency", would the Congress, particularly its Democratic members, raise objections?
Sady --NOT this group of Democrats!
What's next? If both partys turn their backs on the will of the people, what recourse do we the people have?
Psychomikeo said...
What's next? If both partys turn their backs on the will of the people, what recourse do we the people have?
I wish I could be more optimistic and I also wish I had an answer for you.
In my lifetime, I have never seen anything quite like this. It is one thing to have your government taken over by a tyrant -- but by an IDIOT?????????????
We may all be fucked silly.
A final shot--- I have always supported not just two parties but several. I've always belived dissent was good, debate to be desired.
But there is no debating this GOP --a gang of crooks, lying bastards, murderers by proxy.
I want to see the leadership of this crime syndicate hauled before a hangin' judge.
Post a Comment