Thursday, July 05, 2007

How Bush Sold Out America

Bush is an ideological hit man for a radical, extremist cabal that hates America and the Constitution. Bush was put into office to pull off a job: execute a contract on the very source of our freedom, the Bill of Rights. Bush's mission: do a job on American freedom, rollback the achievements of the Supreme Court, secure a dictatorship for the blessings --not of liberty --but of big, fat, juicy defense contracts.

So far, Bush has done a splendid job for an unholy alliance of corporatist fascists, radical fundies, and simple crooks like Jack Abramoff who were just in it for quick bucks. Pat Robertson took it all seriously, thinking Bush to be on a mission from God to murder Hugo Chavez and to allow black people to die of criminal neglect in times of natural disaster.

Bush hates what America stood for. In several acts of high treason, Bush has deliberately subverted the principles upon which our late republic was founded! He made his preferences known very early on.
This would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...heh heh heh ...just so long as I'm the dictator!
At the time Bush said that, America was holding on by a thread. Just one more vote on SCOTUS would give conservatives the dictatorship Bush dreamed of. Too much could go wrong for Democracy and did. It was called Bush v Gore, a political and disingenuous decision that did not even address the issues cited as compelling the case.
When the court was finally forced to conjure a point of law in its desperate search for a reason for the stay to save the Bush presidency, the justices (probably Scalia) hit upon the argument that the Florida Supreme Court violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protecion clause — that Florida's voters were being treated unequally by the lack of a standard in counting ballots. The bitter irony of this decision, as Bugliosi points out, is that "the equal protection clause ... was tailor-made for blacks" after the Civil War, intended to ensure the civil rights of former slaves. In the present case, the black vote was the most likely to be negated by the court's decision to end the recount.

--Howard Garcia, In Bush v. Gore, Supreme Court Conservatives Brought Disgrace on Their Institution

That SCOTUS' citation of the 14th was just a ruse is proven by the fact that the court's decision offers up a "remedy" that doesn't even address the 14th. How bloody cynical can you get?
...leading professors of constitutional law such as Ackerman and New York University's Ronald Dworkin, [believed that ] naked political self-interest drove the Court's five conservatives to halt the recount ordered by the Florida supreme court. It was not, as the majority opinion stated, that in violation of well-settled Equal Protection jurisprudence the Florida recount in a variety of ways debased or diluted the weight of citizens' votes. Nor was it as the majority held that under Florida law as interpreted by the Florida supreme court (in response to a question posed to it by the U.S. Supreme Court) no time was left to conduct a constitutionally proper recount because December 12 was the outside deadline for Florida to choose its presidential electors. All that was window dressing.

--The continuing controversy over Bush v. Gore

In Bush v Gore, the conservatives sold out America, the Constitution, and stuck us with a would be dictator of no talent, no intellect, no humanity! Bush is not redeemed by his megalomaniacal ambitions, his vainglorious dreams of world conquest for Jesus and Jews of a neocon persuasion. Not elected, Bush DOES NOT represent the people of America.

I know how we came to this. The American people must bear awesome responsibility. The American people had not been vigilant. Ignorance of the Constitution is widespread throughout every demographic segment. Our history, the very principles of our founding, was and continues to be all but ignored in far too many school districts. A brief civics lesson may be in order.

PBS "The Supreme Court" Episode One

I wish the excerpt had been longer. The end observation is witty but not historically accurate and, I am sure, it was not intended to be. The significance of Marbury v Madison is that it established the principle of Judicial Review, the right and the power of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislative. The Constitution does not expressly authorize judicial review although the founders had thought about it. Justice Marshall settled the issue with Marbury v Madison.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts pro- [5 U.S. 137, 177] hibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

--Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison
The right wing must hate the principle of "popular sovereignty" because they have been attacking it since the founders wrote "We the people..." European style monarchies were often epitomized by Louis XIV who summed up his position succinctly: L'Etat! C'est Moi! Bush has assumed as much power with considerably less style. He is content to role up absolute rule in just two words, unitary executive, a euphemism for dictatorship.

How Bush Packed the Court

Mention the term popular sovereignty in America and you get funny looks. Are you talking about 'soverignty's" new video?. The idea that the people themselves are sovereign seems as abstract as relativity, string theory, or curved space-time. The idea that a Bill of Rights is a check on the unbridled power of government over individual liberties seems, to use Alberto Gonzales' term, quaint.

"Just One More Vote Needed"

I cannot imagine Alito, often called "Scalito", defending the rights of mere people against a Moloch of Bushco's devising. The following video had been unavailable but is apparently back on line. It is a must see. I suggest that you follow to YouTube, utilize to download and keep it.

The idiocy and the absurdities never seem to stop. This just in...

Iraq like historic US war, says Bush

Jim Gerstenzang in Martinsburg, West Virginia
July 6, 2007

THE US President, George Bush, has compared the war in Iraq with the US war for independence in his Fourth of July speech.

Like the revolutionaries who "dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty", Mr Bush said American soldiers were fighting "a new and unprecedented war" to protect US freedom.
What an idiot! The following is the best analogy to the American war of independence. It is from William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham, on the floor of the Parliament, urging the British government to get out of America.
My Lords, this ruinous and ignominious situation, where we cannot act with success, nor suffer with honour, calls upon us to remonstrate in the strongest and loudest language of truth, to rescue the ear of Majesty from the delusions which surround it. You cannot, I venture to say, you cannot conquer America.

" What is your present situation there? We do not know the worst; but we know that in three campaigns we have done nothing and suffered much. - You may swell every expense, and strain every effort, still more extravagantly; accumulate every assistance you can beg or borrow; traffic and barter with every pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country.

Your efforts are forever vain and impotent-doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies, to overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and of plunder, devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty! If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms-never-never-never.

--William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (1708-7, On Affairs in America 1777.
DiscoveriesAnd something completely different. This might have been one of my hang outs somewhere between downtown Houston and Gilley's.

I'll have a Dos Equis! Yeeeeee hawwwww!

Why Conservatives Hate America

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine
Post a Comment