Jefferson, Washington and Separation of Church and State

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There may be millions of people in the United States who do not share our founders' reverance for what Thomas Jefferson called the "wall of seperation" between church and state. Many throughout the ranks of the religious right wing, for example, are eager to court bigots and fanatics, promising them a "theocracy" in exhange for their "souls". The following excerpt is typical of a "movement" to create an American Theocracy:

If conservatives are smart, we will make the GOP a relic of the past, and will go to the polls and vote the "Jesus Christ" line...Search out the spiritual life of every candidate, and eliminate those who do not follow the one true God.Long before November, we should have all of the members of our churches and their families commit to EVERYONE voting... Done properly, the turnout should be about 10% liberal and 90% conservative/Christian/ Tea-Party/etc. It would speak very loudly to have this kind of turnout.

--John Stone, comment left on "The Batavian"

Now George Washington is reputed to have been a "man of faith". But many others were not. As many if not more are described as "deists", better described as a philosophical view of a supreme being as opposed to an organized religion.

The bottom line is this: nowhere may be found any reference to "God" or deities of any sort in the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that our founders were prominently and most often not very religious. Some were Deists, some may have been atheists, and some probably did not care. That there is no clause in the Constitution that bases our nation on an "establishment of religion" is to be expected.

The single most effective challenge to would be theocrats is Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptists

---

---

Why and When the Use of Drones is Unconstitutional

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Why 'instant justice' via drones is an evil, pernicious, insidious, undemocratic outrage to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment:

"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."

--U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment

On its a face, the use of a drone means that the people are NOT '...secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects' should some asshole in government merely DEEM you to be a threat in any way whatsoever! If the use of domestic drones should result in but one civilian death, the people are then justified to OVERTHROW, by any means, the government in D.C.. and replace it!

Death by anything other than the judgement of a jury having heard a case brought upon probable cause is MURDER --pure and simple. The people must NOT stand for it!

A final observation: under U.S. leadership and prosecution, the Nuremberg Trial of NAZIS resulted in the hanging death of several Nazis. Some died for less egregious crimes than that of ORDERING an anonymous drone hit on citizens!

---

NRA Lies Exposed

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The NRA wants you to believe that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives them an unqualified, blank check right to 'keep and bear' arms as they choose. That's not so! The Second Amendment --from which the right to 'own and bear' arms is derived --is a single sentence':

 A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

U. S. v Miller is the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly "interprets" the Second Amendment. U.S. v Miller clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms occurs ONLY within the context of a "...well-regulated militia."
All other Federal decisions and state decisions having anything to do with the Second Amendment reference U.S. v Miller to the extent that they address that issue specifically. It is, at last, the only opinion regarding an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is, in fact, law.

The GPO report is an exhaustive source of original, official sources having to do with the Second Amendment. ONE of the original sources is U.S. v Miller (1939), the decision that is considered by scholars to be the most important. U. S. v Miller is the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly "interprets" the Second Amendment.

U.S. v Miller states clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms occurs only within the context of a "...well-regulated militia." All other Federal decisions and state decisions having anything to do with the Second Amendment reference U.S. v Miller to the extent that they address that issue specifically.

Before getting to the sources themselves, consider the following quote from R. William Ide III, former President of the American Bar Association, who stated bluntly in 1994:

"There is NO Second Amendment guarantee. There is NO confusion on this issue."

R. W. Ide [emphases mine, LH].

Further --the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on firearms Violence stated that the Second Amendment "...relates to a well-regulated militia and that there are NO federal constitutional decisions which preclude the regulation of firearms in private hands." To sum it up, Erwin Griswold, the late Solicitor General put it this way:

Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds. That the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American Constitutional law.

– Erwin Griswold, Solicitor General

In 1934, Congress reacted to gangster related violence by enacting the National Firearms Act which prohibited the interstate transportation of silencers, automatic weapons, and sawed-off shotguns. Jack Miller appealed his conviction under that law. He claimed that Congress had violated his Second Amendment rights. The court gave consideration to "...the dependent clause" of the Second Amendment --the first part which establishes the context of the Amendment as a whole: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." The following is an excerpt from the court's opinion:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a "shot gun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such instrument Certainly it is not within Judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

–United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (USSC+)

The Supreme Court decisions continued, saying that the obvious purpose of the Second Amendment was "...to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia". The court concluded that the Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." The views are to be found in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (USSC+)

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

--Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 2385-86 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring)

The conclusions drawn by the court address the possession and use of guns within the context of a "militia". By the definition given in any dictionary, the U.S. Army is a militia. However the courts define "militia", the Second Amendment clearly addresses "well-regulated militias". Common-sense, law, English common law, and tradition would dictate that only a sovereign government of duly elected and ordained elected representatives of the people may regulate militias. If not, then who? Unregulated bands operating outside the law is unacceptable in any civilized society. The self-appointed "militia" groups clearly do NOT meet the requirement established in the Second Amendment and in U.S. v Miller which recounts the legitimate purposes that a "well-regulated militia" may pursue under law.

To sum up: U. S. v Miller is the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly "interprets" the Second Amendment. U.S. v Miller clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms occurs only within the context of a "...well-regulated militia."

All other Federal decisions and state decisions having anything to do with the Second Amendment reference U.S. v Miller to the extent that they address that issue specifically. It is, at last, the only opinion regarding an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is in fact, law --your experts and mine notwithstanding.

A thousand experts are either right or wrong on merit; the number of experts on either side is irrelevant. There are such things as "honest" disagreements. However, the official positions of the NRA re: the Second Amendment are NOT of this class. They are, rather, a pack of malicious lies, propaganda, distortions, and half truths.

Almost ten years ago, my article with the same title was published on 'The Opinion', a pioneering 'opinion' site presaging the onset of 'blogs'. To be expected, I was attacked by a legion of brainwashed NRA ditto-heads who called me names, called me 'stupid', and presumed to 'instruct me' with respect to the opinions of the 'founders'. Naturally, I refuted every NRA attacker not with my own logic or perspectives but with the writings of the 'founders' themselves, U.S. v Miller and every other decision that SCOTUS and Federal courts have handed down, as well as the writings of founders that gun nuts had said would have opposed me. They didn't! In fact, my argument is that of the founders themselves.

As a result of that experience, I concluded that the NRA is an organization of liars, dumbshits, ignoramouses, intolerant ideologues, obnoxious would-be thugs and a legion of Wayne LaPierre wannabes. In other words: fucking liars! Their lies and propaganda are not welcome on this site. The NRA has enough money to buy time on the corporate media! The NRA can fuck off!

---

---

Rick Santorum Attacks the Separation of Church and State

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The ignorant (if not moronic) right wing is stirring up fears and spreading distortions about the First Amendment again. Rick Santorum, for example, has said that the separation of church and state is NOT absolute. I beg to differ and so would have Thomas Jefferson who described a WALL OF SEPERATION between Chruch and State. And I will venture that Jefferson was in a better position to know what he was talking about and that Jeffeson was infinitely more intelligent than Rick Santorum.

The following is the text of the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.

Rick Santorum is of an authoritarian mentality that asserts a "right" to believe claptrap i.e, "intelligent design" but at the same time DENY you the right to believe modern theories of evolution. These ignoramuses label their opposition with the word Darwinian --as if 'Darwinian' were a bad word. It's NOT! Of course, Darwin's theory is "Darwinian". It also happens to be, in the man, true and verifiable. It is not theory; it's fact!

Tragically --the right wing has a mental blind spot. They are utterly INCAPABLE of applying to themselves objective rules of logic and evidence. While most intelligent people today are comfortable with the fact that the laws of physics apply equally everywhere in the universe; they are discovered, described ONLY by observation and empirical methods. The "right wing" inclined have, obviously, never considered for a moment that their thinking processes are, in fact, reversed. Intelligent people will follow a premise logically to a conclusion. The right wing --rather --ASSUMES the truth of an ideology and work backward. Forcing everything into the mold. As a result of prejudice and mentally impaired rationalizations, the right wing will accept ONLY those conclusions conforming to their prejudices. An "pen mind" is anathema to them if not completely unheard of. By any definition, the American right wing is a "kooky cult"!

---

---

A Revolutionary Agenda

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Why has the right wing apparently succeeded in stacking SCOTUS with 5 justices who have in common their disdain for the work of our founders? They succeeded for several reasons:

1. the media, concentrated in very few corporate hands, demands 'free speech' but only for themselves;
2. the corporate community is interested in their privileges but disdain YOUR rights;
3. education is neglected and most notably in those states 'occupied' by the GOP.

Texas is a case in point. Prior to the arrival of the Bush crime family, one could get a good education in Texas. I would like to think that I am but one of millions who are the living proof of it. Bush/Perry, however, were more interested in the profits that 'private education' might make if declining test scores in the public systems were ignored. The 'private schools' are profitable but serve the ruling elite. Everyone else is expected to resort to crime and thus fill the gulag of corporate-owned prisons.

Recently, Karl Rove 'demanded' to know who gave us the right to occupy our country! Rove has apparently never heard of the Bill of Rights. I will be happy to educate Rove. In fact the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution does not 'give' or 'grant' those rights; it merely affirms the rights that all of us enjoy by common law.

I suggest Karl Rove read John Locke for a start. By 'common law' we have the right to speak, dissent, protest, criticize and, in every other non-violent manner, hold every politician --from elected dog catcher to President --accountable to US!!

Though he was not a 'founder' in that he was not among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the right of people to abolish tyrannies, the right to abolish those governments failing to uphold their end of a 'social contract', a 'convenent' between government and people. Governments failing those responsibilities are in 'breach of contract', the 'social contract' which is, in fact, its only source of legitimacy.

Every philosopher who is connected in any way with what is called the 'englightenment' has held that when the 'government' i.e, the 'hired hands' who run it from day-to-day violate the terms of this 'social contract', it is the right of the people to 'abolish it. To wit:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--The Declaration of Independence [authored by Thomas Jefferson; bolding mine, LH]

The nimrods in Washington D.C. to include all of K-street, the gang of lobbyists as well as paid liars like Karl Rove and numerous 'elected' representatives should go back to school. I suggest that their first course be entitled: HUMILITY with various lessons to include:

• public service
• the sovereignty of the people
• the enumerated responsibilities of government to its sovereign

The people are the final jurors. We, the people, are tasked with deciding whether a particular government shall remain or be replaced. Jefferson and the founders as well believed that that was our right! I have, at this point, given up on a corrupt establishment, controlled as it is by the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the population. I have given up on the 'community' of 'legal abstractions' called 'corporations'! Enough! It is time that the people be heard! A new broom sweeps clean. All things must pass!

The time is near, perhaps arrived, when the people must re-establish as matters of law that:

• the people are sovereign;
• that whenever any 'government' has failed its duties and responsibilities to the people it is the RIGHT of the people to abolish it;
• that any new government inherits, therefore, a legal and ironclad responsibility not to tolerate the rights of the people but to preserve, protect and defend them actively against all subversive attempts at home or abroad.

Our so-called 'government' --at least since Ronald Reagan --has failed the people. The Constitution is paid lip service. The Bill of Rights is reviled. The needs of the people are ignored. The environment is considered the preserve of corporations. Corporations are given 'rights' though they are not and never will be people. The coming revolution has a long list of wrongs to be undone and crimes to be punished.

---

---

The United States is NOT a Christian Nation!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Whenever any court of any type restricts, bans or opposes religious intrusions into governmental affairs, an army of fundies --like cockroaches -- are sure to crawl out of the woodwork. Just as predictably, an army of politcians will ooze out --like sweet stuff --upon a public stage to court them.

Predictably, this circle of jerks --consisting as it does of the deluded on the one hand and the gaggle of oportunists/politcians on the other hand --will denounce the decision(s) and declare that it is against the 'wishes and intents' of the nation's "founding fathers".

The most obvious examples have to do with separation of church and state which should be a settled issue on the side of 'separation'. Propagandists throughout the right wing would have it otherwise. They try to re-write history everyday. If we are not vigilant, one day, they will succeed in creating and imposing upon us a theocracy when, in fact, the founders had decried 'theocracy' and deliberately created a secular state.

An alarming, perhaps a growing, number throughout the right wing will tell you with a straight face that the United States was founded upon the 'Christian' religion and that the founders were themselves 'Christians'. Neither statement is true. The U.S. is not a Christian nation nor was it intended to be. The founders themselves were not Christian, some where 'deists', others espoused no religion whatsoever. To sum up: our founders were not Christians and certainly did not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free execise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment, U.S. Constitution [emphasis above is mine, EC]

One wonders what it is about 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' that is not understood by the American 'right wing'.

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

--John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli

The organized, concerted right wing effort to tear down the 'wall of separation' between church and state is a repugnant revision of our history that must not be tolerated.

Thomas Jefferson is not, by definition, a 'founder'; nevertheless, he drafted the Declaration of Independence and shared with those who later made up the Constitutional Convention, the view that the United States was --in no way --'founded upon the Christian religion'.

The United States is NOT a 'Christian' nation.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

--Thomas Jefferson, Danbury Letter

We will never be free to relax with respect to this issue. The American right wing, extremists and religious fanatics have a subversive agenda. Unless they are constantly opposed or stopped, they will stop at nothing to effect their agenda. They have already proven that they are willing to change the meaning and legal significance of 'precedent' upon which is based the legal and philsophical underpinnings of Western Civilization.

Clarence Thomas is articulating the view that precedent doesn't count... I think that if Bush were to appoint people who believe that precedent doesn't count, you would really see a carnage of the laws passed by the New Deal courts.... I think that this...new Court is perfectly capable of reaching back and substantially reversing and eroding the decisions of the Supreme Court in the late 1930s. And that, to me, is a great danger.

--Martin Garbus

It is not claimed in the preamble to the Constitution that God ordained our Constitution! No external lawgiver is cited! Nor is the Constitution based --as Gary Bauer had said --on the Ten Commandments. The Constitution never mentions the Ten Commandments. The Constitution is not based on the Talmud, nor the Upanishads, nor the Bhagavad-Gita, nor the Koran!

Fundamentalists of any religious persuasion should read the Constitution from the first letter to the last period. They should be required to count the number of times the word "God" is used!

NOT ONCE!

Count the number of times the word "Christian" is used!

NOT ONCE!

Count the number of times that the name of any religion is named or even referenced!

NOT ONCE!

That is the case because the Constitution is a secular document creating a secular, humanist nation --A FREE REPUBLIC --and until it is overthrown by GOP/wing nuts/Religious fanatics in a coup d'etat, it will remain so!

Five ideologues have proven themselves contemptuous of both the rule of law and a basic principle underlying our founding: the separation of church and state! The constitutional subversives are Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito and Sandra Day O'Connor. None of them can be trusted to be faithful stewards of our heritage, our Constitution, indeed, our very freedoms as they are guaranteed to us in that document. Some examples:

In 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska. He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars. Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket. Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.

--Ian Millhiser, Think Progress, In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man

Yet another example among scores:

Today, a Supreme Court majority ruled against women by siding with the country's largest employment discriminator, saying Wal-Mart, essentially, is too big to sue. The brave women, led by Betty Dukes, who stood up to Wal-Mart at great personal sacrifice, are told simply they're on their own.

"With this decision, the Supreme Court has assisted Wal-Mart in its efforts to systematically dole out promotions and pay raises on the basis of sex. The law calls that illegal discrimination, but this Court has turned its back on the more than million women who only sought simple justice," said NOW President Terry O'Neill. "The women of Wal-Mart deserve respect and fair treatment, and we will continue to stand up for their rights."

In 2002, NOW declared Wal-Mart a "Merchant of Shame" as part of its Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign. NOW chapters have led countless community demonstrations at Wal-Mart stores around the country to educate shoppers about Wal-Mart's exploitation of its women employees.

Today, NOW demands an immediate legislative response to help the women of Wal-Mart. We call on Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide more effective remedies to victims of sex-based wage discrimination. This bill passed in the House in January 2009, but ultimately was defeated in the Senate.

"The gap between women's and men's pay is still sizeable, which is why it's so important to get this legislation passed," stated O'Neill. "We will continue supporting the efforts of Senators Mikulski, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Stabenow and others to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and hold accountable those who stand in the way of this sensible remedial bill."

A legislative remedy is only part of the solution, however. NOW also calls on Wal-Mart to end its unconscionable resistance to employees' efforts to form unions and bargain collectively over pay, benefits and other conditions of employment. Research demonstrates that unionized women workers earn better wages and have better benefits than their non-union counterparts. In fact, women in unions earn 11.2 percent more or $2.00 more per hour than non-union women workers. And the gender wage gap is smaller in unionized workplaces.

--Political Affairs, In 5-4 decision, conservative Supreme Court justices dismiss Wal-Mart lawsuit

These 'justices' and the American right wing which supports them wish to undo the work of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and every founder whose signature is to be found at the bottom of what has been called the most magnificant document to have issued from the mind of humankind: the U.S. Constitution.

---

---

A Last Resort

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

A nation in which about one half of the population openly pines for the murder of the only fairly elected president in some 9 years is finished. The writing is on the wall. The America that most of us loved is dead. Tragically --it will not rest in peace, rather, infamy!

Who killed America but bigoted idiots throughout the GOP rank and file? who think themselves rich when in fact they --like the rest of us --are consigned to relative poverty while just one percent of the total population enjoys more wealth than that of 95 percent of the rest of us combined! It was all by design, begun with the Presidency of Ronald Reagan about whom GOP-types, this utterly failed mentality, these endemically criminal psychopaths, swooned: "He made us feel good about ourselves!"

Not only have the Wall Street Journal and the hosts of Fox News been issuing their usual dark mutterings, but a new slogan has began appearing on bumper stickers, t-shirts, and even teddy bears: "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8."

That psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

Maddow seemed mainly amused by the teddy bears, but when she turned for comment to former right-wing evangelical leader Frank Schaeffer, he emphasized that in a religious context "it means something more threatening."

"The situation that I find genuinely frightening right now," Schaeffer explained, "is that you have a ramping up of biblical language ... and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama ... as 'not us.' ... Now he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel ... who should be slaughtered, if not by God then by just men."

--Former evangelist: Religious right is ‘trawling for assassins’

'Missing America' is about mourning the loss of ideals --freedom, equality, Democracy, inherent rights, self-evident truths, the promise that this government, this nation, unlike the monarchies of Europe, recognized in its founding document that people are sovereign. Alas! None of that means shit to psychopathic idiots who have never bothered to read the U.S. Constitution but are, nevertheless, experts!

Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.

We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.

--Kevin Phillips, How the GOP Became God's Own Party, Sunday, April 2, 2006

To this ilk I say: you have never been interested in American ideals but those you could exploit. You have never loved this country but for what you could milk it for! You have never paid but lip service to the U.S. Constitution which you wield like a weapon when you like it but a 'goddamned piece of paper' when you don't! You have nothing meaningful to say to me so just shut the fuck up!

Eagles: A Last Resort

Why I moderate comments

• SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
• Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

---

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

After Eight Disastrous Years, Hope!

by Len Hart

What was that collective rushing of air I just heard? I think it was a universal, global sigh of relief! Ding, Dong! The wicked douche bag may not be dead but he is at least out of the White House where I would hope the fumigators have done their jobs and the 'exterminators' have dusted for bugs.

We are in desperate need and deserving of comic relief having just escaped the guillotine. There may, indeed, be kneeslappers among those who have managed to extract their heads from a noose. Here is a soupcon of some of the most recent writers of sardonic, ironic gallows humor.

Finally. Mercifully. Astonishingly. Incredibly. The insane adventure in national suicide known as the Bush administration is at last coming to an end.

This was a ride that beggars belief. Even after McCarthy and Nixon and Reagan and Gingrich, nothing prepared us for the last eight years, and I for one have difficulty finding the words that could begin to do justice to describing this historical folly of epic proportions.

...

If this child in the body of a man were named Putin or Castro or Kim, Americans would get it. If they were observing the country from the perspective of Zimbabwe, instead of the other way around, then they would get it. They can understand the notion of some foreign thug who means to do harm to our country. They get the idea, in other places, of a domestic thug who seeks to plunder his own country. They just can't imagine it happening here. And, therefore, they don't see that it just has.

--The Bushies Stole Us Blind ... So, How'd You Like Your Beer?, AlterNet

What is most scary is that this had very nearly happened before and --even now --few make the connection. Before Bush pre-empted him in the the areas of idiocy, 'trickle down' giveaways to a tiny elite, bluster, primitive simian chest beating, or mangled grammar, there was Ronald Reagan, who was, in his time, the very worst President in US history. Reagan has been outclassed by a brand of stupidity, cruelty, psychosis and utter 'disconnectedness' that GOPPERS of his day could only dream about. It was Reagan who took class warfare to absurd heights. It was left to the the arch fiend Bush to push everyone but the very, very rich off the summit and into the dark abyss.

The show at the Lincoln Memorial contained other moments signaling that the cultural civil war that began with the civil rights crusade, the movement against the Vietnam War, and the rise of hippie-dom was done—at least for now—and that the libs had won. Toward the end of the HBO-aired event, Bruce Springsteen, once a greaser-rocker, brought out folk music hero and activist Pete Seeger, once derided by conservatives as a commie, and Seeger led the crowd in “This Land Is Your Land.” This song is the liberal national anthem, written by Woody Guthrie in 1940 as a populist-minded response to Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America,” which was too rah-rah for Guthrie’s liking. (Beyoncé then hit the stage and belted out “God Bless America.”)

--Obama's Inauguration Marks the End of America's Culture Wars

It may prove impossible to win a 'cultural war' against the axis of Reagan/Bush I/Bush II. This triumvirate of elitism pushed the envelope to the breaking point over the course of a mere 30 years --a significant amount of time in the history of a young nation. Some now approaching middle age have no other memories of this nation but those of an increasingly tiny elite, championed by the likes of Reagan/Bush, subverting the principles of our founding, transfering wealth upward, impoverishing everyone else, creating the worst 'recessions' [in fact depressions] since that of Herbert Hoover who urged poor people to sell oranges from a pushcart. Even Marie Antoinette did better. She encouraged the poor to eat cake when they could no longer afford bread.

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. It's not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation's security. The fact is that the Bush administration's abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

--Forgive and Forget the Crimes of the Bushies? I Don't Think So

Obama offered much to liberals, progressives, in other words, anyone appalled by the politics of fear, elitism, lies and empire. The question is: how substantially is Obama prepared to build upon the wave of goodwill that he now enjoys from that hard core cadre who ---from the 'git go' --found in Bush a threat to every principle that made America the nation our founders envisioned and articulated in a 'goddamned piece of paper'!

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

--Barack Obama, Inaugural Address

I want to know --does Obama understand that the Bush/GOP America he described is NOT the result of incompetence? It is the deliberate result of GOP intention and design. The GOP, in Texas, has deliberately subverted public education. The result: Texas has become the perfect example. Texas leads the nation in the number of students failing to graduate high school, As a result, Texas leads the nation in the number of people incarcerated for serious crimes. It is no coincidence that, at the same time, Texas pioneered the 'corporatization' of the criminal justice and prison system. Only an idiot could not make the connection. GOP policies 'leave only poor children behind', increase crime and thus incarceration rates and it is done in order to enrich the GOP 'base' of robber barons, liars, elitists, fascists and useful idiots who sold their souls.

In the meantime, I wish Obama well. He has as much to undo as do.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them— that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

--President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address

After Disaster, Hope!

Compare and contrast.

Bush: The Delusional, Stupid Psycho Out of His Rotting Gourd!

Additional resources

• In Last Official Act, Bush Repeals the English Language
  
• Hey, George! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!
• How Did Galileo Do It? Astronomer's DNA May Hold Clues
• Orgasmic Video: GOODBYE TO YOU! [Hat tip: Undeniable Liberalism]
  

Subscribe

Subscribe in a reader

GOP, Bush, Evil, Tyranny

Spread the word

The Historical Significance and the Failure of George W. Bush

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Lincoln summed up what it was that made the United States not an alliance of separate states but a single nation of "United" states. Our nation was, he said at Gettysburg, 'conceived in liberty', an abstract, philosophical idea that had been given practical meaning in the US Constitution. We were, Lincoln said, 'dedicated' to a 'proposition'. '

Proposition' is a precise term found in philosophy and logic. Meaningful propositions are provable. They are 'meaningful' to the extent they are provable. Bush has no patience with any of that. He does not 'do nuance'. Our founders did 'nuance' and within it is found the source of American liberty: the Constitution. "The Constitution," Bush said, "is just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Thus --Americans are united not by ethnicity or other characteristics of 'nationality' but by abstract, philosophical principles. The US is a product of deliberate and considered 'choices' of an existentialist nature. Bush's failed presidency is already measured by the degree to which his administration exploited our patriotism while subverting the very source of it --those abstract ideas referred to by Lincoln: our very conception in 'liberty', our 'dedication' to the principle that all men are created equal, the 'nuance' wherein is found our nationhood.

The United States, though it is still a young nation, is already brought to the brink of its dissolution because one man, though he has derived power from the apparatus of state and nation, has failed to grasp the source of it or its significance. The political philosopher David Miller defined a nation is a group of people sharing a sense of common membership, believing that others, likewise, share the sense of membership and belonging. A nation, he wrote, is capable of acting as a 'group' the members of which share a common history, a 'shared public culture'. It is absurd to consider a regime wherein the 'defense' of this 'shared public culture' is, in fact, the destroyer of it. But --this is what Bush has done.

It is the measure of Bush's failure that the destruction of that 'shared public culture' so succinctly summarized by Lincoln, articulated significantly by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and, later, by James Madison in the Constitution, have fallen victim --not to terrorists --but to Bush's presumed defense of it.

It was Bush --not terrorists --who dismantled our Constitution with the pronouncement that 'The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper'. It was Bush --not terrorists --who declared an end of habeas corpus, due process of law, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizure, the rights of free speech, assembly and petition. It was Bush --not terrorists --who must surely 'just hate freedom'. It was Bush --not terrorists --who robbed us what it was that made us a nation!

David Miller stressed the importance of 'trust'. A history of the 20th Century is replete with stories of nations whose regimes were distrusted by citizens. The obvious examples are the communist regimes of the Soviet Union, China under Mao. But there are as many on the right wing --Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet! If my rights so ardently defended by Jefferson, so articulately described by Madison, are imperiously abrogated, what difference does it make to me whether the assault is from the left or from the right?

The US government while never perfect seemed secure in a system of checks of balances. It was Bush --not terrorists --who deliberately upset the balance. A purely partisan 5-4 Bush v Gore was the harbinger of things to come. Bush v Gore, it is said correctly, made no law. It's effect was to stop a recount that had it been completed would have elected another man to the Oval Office. The US government has been illegitimate since that date.

No one can tell if the US will ever find its way back. The Presidential primaries were uninspiring. The previews of the upcoming Obama v McCain race give me little hope. No one is talking about the only issue that without it nothing else matters: the nature and legitimacy of the government in Washington.

Published Articles

• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part I, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part II, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part III, In Fascist Dictatorships Telling the truth becomes a crime
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part IV, the state forces an 'existential' choice
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part V, Public Opinion Becomes Irrelevant
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VI, The government places itself above the law
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VII, The Government Denies 'Due Process of Law'
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State Part VIII: Atrocities are justified with lies, myths or propaganda

---

---

George Bush is NO Thomas Jefferson

The following words of Ray McGovern are those of a TRUE patriot. It was David Hume (I believe) who spoke of the moral responsibility to be intelligent (to the extent that our native abilities allow us, of course).What is most alarming recently is the DELIBERATE and willful ignorance found in the Bush administration and throughout out nation's right wing ---ignorance of our heritage, our common values, our Democratic traditions, our Constitution. And not just ignorance which may be forgiven and corrected but worse ---disdain, hate, and the utter lack of humanity.

The words of the Constitution are sacred to me. They express a 'secular' faith --faith that as mere human beings we may with intelligence, good will and design create JUST and FREE societies. Bush insults me personally when he makes irrational and evil exceptions to the rule of law!

Bush presumes to invade the land of Jefferson. I share McGovern's outrage at this effrontery.

Sacrilege at Monticello

A Letter to the Charlottesville Daily Progress

By Ray McGovern, http://afterdowningstreet.org

I write as a Virginian, the father of four graduates of Mr. Jefferson's university and of another who is an alumnus of the university Mr. Jefferson himself attended.

I have just spoken with Emily of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to register our family's dismay that President George W. Bush has been invited to speak at Monticello on July 4th. I cannot imagine a greater insult to Mr. Jefferson, who played such a huge role in securing for us the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this great Commonwealth and country. George W. Bush at Monticello? Desecration of what until now has been hallowed ground.

Emily explained that the Foundation had decided that it could invite the office of the president, without appearing to invite the present incumbent. That distinction is one worthy of the lawyers whom the Bush administration hired to justify torture, ignoring the dictum of another Virginian, Patrick Henry, that practices like the rack and screw must be left behind in the Old World.

Those who invited the president to Charlottesville to help celebrate the Declaration of Independence, which asserted basic freedoms that Mr. Bush has now curtailed, dishonor Mr. Jefferson in a most offensive way, scandalize our children and grandchildren, and desecrate Monticello itself.

A shameful day for the Commonwealth.

Raymond L. McGovern
Arlington, Virginia

---

---

Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VII, The Government Denies 'Due Process of Law'

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

The Bush administration is credibly compared to a cult. Like Hitler's 'Third Reich', its assault on civil liberties and democracy have resulted in a 'state' bearing no resemblance to the one created or envisioned by the 'founders' and ratified September 17, 1787. Like the history of any 'police state', a history of the Bush administration must chronicle its methodical, deliberate dismantling of 'Due Process of Law'

There's a lot of anxiety inside the -- you know, our professional military and our intelligence people. Many of them respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as much as anybody here, and individual freedom. So, they do -- there's a tremendous sense of fear. These are punitive people. One of the ways -- one of the things that you could say is, the amazing thing is we have been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government. Just how and why and how they did it so efficiently, will have to wait for much later historians and better documentation than we have now, but they managed to overcome the bureaucracy and the Congress, and the press, with the greatest of ease.

--Seymour Hersh, We've Been Taken Over By a Cult

It is a 'cult' which has historically opposed what good Americans, legal scholars, historians, and jurists call 'Due Process of Law'. Due Process of Law is the difference between a tyranny and legitimate government, between a free citizenry and slavery, between totalitarian decrees and Democracy.

American history is stained by the likes of Prescott Bush and other fascists and fascist sympathizers who found in "Due Process of Law" an obstacle to their dreams of installing a fascist dictatorship in America. While the Project for the New American Century openly pined for a 'catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor' that would rally Americans to their fascist dreams, the real Pearl Harbor thrust the US into a great world war that was, presumably, intended to defeat the fascist threat once and for all. Simply, with the defeat of the Axis powers, all the fascists but those in America were defeated. Here, under Bush, the threat of fascism to the Due Process of Law has never been greater.

'Due Process of Law' in the US is codified in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and in the principle of Habeas Corpus, codified in Article I, Section IX, US Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Fifth Amendment, Findlaw

Also see: US Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment, likewise at Findlaw.

Following is what the US Constitution has to say about the writ of habeas corpus:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

--US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

It doesn't take a legal eagle to conclude that 'Due Process of Law' is a major stumbling block to Bush, who most certainly had planned to torture people even before 911 so conveniently gave him the pretext he needed.

“[I]t’s not all about John Yoo. The U.S. didn’t just start torturing its detainees because a government lawyer said it was okay, or because some executive-branch extremist like David Addington determined that anything and everything was permissible in a time of war, or because some dim-witted troops at Abu Ghraib just didn’t know any better. At some point, early on, a decision to allow torture, to enable it, must have been made — and it must have been made at the highest levels of government.”

--Michael Stickings noted.

Many Americans were unconcerned about 'torture'. That was for 'terrorists', they told themselves, forgetting that Bush has assumed dictatorial powers. If Bush merely 'deems' you a 'terrorist', perhaps because you oppose his coup d'etat, you may be termed a 'terrorist'.

According to an explosive ABC News report on April 9, dozens of top-secret meetings took place in the White House, beginning in 2002, in which the president’s top advisors approved the use of torture. Those involved were members of the National Security Council’s “Principals Committee” — Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft. Unfortunately, however, these dramatic revelations have been largely ignored by the media and the public. Yet we now know more clearly than ever before that it is because of these senior officials — and not just Animal House on the night shift — that America is regarded around the world as a Torture Nation.

The techniques that the advisors not only approved, but reportedly even choreographed in particular cases amount to torture by any reasonable standard. Near drowning (waterboarding), sleep deprivation,subjection to temperatures of extreme cold (hypothermia), physical assault and stress positions are proscribed by international anddomestic law. They are gulag tactics that have no place in a democratic society. John Ashcroft rightly asked at one point: “Why arewe talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

But according to the report, Condoleezza Rice prevailed, telling the CIA:“This is your baby. Go do it.” Nor does it seem that the president was insulated from these decisions. As the head of the National Security Council, he signed adecision memo in which torture was effectively authorized (February 7, 2002). He has also admitted that the new report is accurate: “And, yes,” he told ABC News, “I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” Commenting on these developments, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley stated bluntly: “This was a torture program . . . and it goes right to the President’s desk.” He added: “I don’t think there’s any doubt that [the president] was aware of this. The only doubt is simply whether anybody cares enough to do something about it.”

--George Hunsinger, History Will Not Absolve Us

Habeas Corpus' is addressed unambiguously in the body of the US Constitution itself and means, simply, that one cannot be held against his/her will without just or probable cause. You cannot be jailed and held if there are no charges against you. Upon demand, a court must issue a writ of habeas corpus, compelling those holding you to state the reasons for your detention. If there are no good or compelling reasons, you must be released. It was an ancient principle by the time it was codifed in the Magna Carta signed by King John. Bush assumes powers that not even Kings had. Certainly, the Bush administration would have been, should have been compelled to release hundreds, possibly all of the detainees at Guantanamo and the gulag archipelego of US torture centers and concentration camps throughout Eastern Europe.
At last, some of the truth about George W. Bush has hit the mainstream media.

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The “Principals,” ABC reported, included Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who chaired the meetings.

According to one top official, Ashcroft reportedly asked aloud after one meeting, “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”
--ABC News, Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'

Later, Bush's unrelenting subversions of the US Constitution were most often facilitated by Ashcroft's successor --Alberto Gonzales. It was two reversals concerning so-called 'enemy combatants' that compelled Bush to move quickly. Bush summarily dismissed the US District Court in Washington, notifying the court that it no longer had jurisdiction in such cases and may no longer consider "... hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba."

Habeas corpus, a Latin term meaning "you have the body," is one of the oldest principles of English and American law. It requires the government to show a legal basis for holding a prisoner. A series of unresolved federal court cases brought against the administration over the last several years by lawyers representing the detainees had left the question in limbo.

—Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases, Washington Post

Clearly —the bill demanded by Bush and duly passed by the obeisant Congress is unconstitutional on its face. Even the stodgy Wall Street Journal said that the law was "... a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court", stripping the courts of all jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus claims filed by so-called "enemy combatants" anywhere in the world.

Over two years ago, Rasul v. Bush decided in favor of the Guantanamo detainees, giving them the right to challenge their detentions. More recently, Hamdan v Rumsfeld ruled decisively in favor of the detainees. The decision was blunt and precise, unequivocal. Clearly —Bush's position is un-American yet the issue persists with congress giving Bush an unconstitutional authority to try detainees before military commission while denying courts all judicial review of habeas corpus claims. Re-writing the laws to make legal crimes Bush had already committed was the task assigned to Mssrs Gonazales and Yoo. But Gonzales proved in this Senate hearing that he is more qualified to hold the office of Minister of Propaganda than that of Attorney General.

Gonzales tried to snow the committee with transparent sophistry. Clearly --since Magna Carta habeas corpus is an inalienable right by common law so ingrained in Anglo-Saxon tradition that the founders felt it necessary to prohibit its arbitrary abrogation by any government at any time. As the US Constitution itself establishes in the preamble and as Jefferson affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, government has no inherent powers to withrdaw rights that are clearly possessed already by the people. Moreover, it is the people who imbued the government with whatever powers it possesses. Gonzales' fallacious argument has it the wrong way 'round and betrays his ignorance of elementary principles of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. I would suggest he go back to law school. Those traditions, those established principles are, in fact, our jurisprudential heritage, a tradition at least as old as Magna Carta.

US Rep. Darrell Issa said Wednesday he was "outraged" that executive branch officials recently gave a congressional hearing misleading and inaccurate testimony based on information that both the Department of Justice and the White House knew to be untrue.

"We can soft-pedal it a lot of ways, but Congress was lied to," Issa, R-Vista, said in a Wednesday phone interview from his Washington office.
-- Issa: 'Congress was lied to'Calls for ouster of attorney general if involved in providing false information to lawmakers, WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer

Some background on habeas corpus

In common law, habeas corpus (Latin: [We command that] you have the body) is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a prisoner be brought before the court so that the court can determine whether that person is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

The right of habeas corpus—or rather, the right to petition for the writ—has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus."[1]

Bush asserts that wartime and "inherent powers" give him all the legal authority he needs to conduct widespread domestic surveillance of US citizens at home or abroad. I maintain that a bona fide 'state of war' cannot be simply 'declared' by the executive. The Constitution has reserved that power to Congress and only Congress. Moreover, the so-called 'war on terror' of which Iraq is supposed to have been a part is a criminal fraud based upon a pack of malicious lies. No decree issuing upon a fraud is lawful. At last, even if the 'war on terror' had been legitimate or even declared by Congress, Bush's adventure against Iraq is not. Bush's position was best summed up recently and fallaciously by Newt Gingrich who stated that Bush found it necessary to rescind our 'rights' in order to defend them --a phony baloney inherent contradiction on its face!

GO BACK TO SCHOOL, NEWT!!!! YOU FLUNKED ELEMENTARY LOGIC!!!!

Put another way --what if in the act of defending against 'terrorism', we become terrorists? Yet again --what difference does it make to me if my rights are abrogated by terrorists or by Bush? And, precisely, what IS the difference between Bush, who has claimed millions of victims in the Middle East, and the gang of alleged terrorists, whose body count is somewhere between three and four thousand? Why is Bush, who flouts the rule of law, not considered to be the world's number one terrorist? A final note on this topic: the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq are not due to 'terrorism' or 'terrorists'. We invaded them!

In the meantime, the Congress saw fit to renew the Patriot Act which now includes a little known provision that creates a US "Gestapo" —a new federal police force that will enforce Bush's blatant violations of the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment. Sec. 605 reads:

'There is hereby created and established a permanent police force to be known as the "United States Secret Service Uniformed Division."'

—US Patriot Act, Sec. 605, Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service Uniformed Division

An excerpt:

...officers of the Secret Service Uniform Division will "carry firearms" (sec. 3056A (b)(1)(A)) and be authorized to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony" (sec. 3056A (b)(1)(B))

Please note: the statute establishes "reasonable grounds"! That, in itself, violates the Constitution which establishes as the standard "...probable cause", not "reasonableness". Read the Constitution.

As Bush "bunkers down" over Nixon's old assertion of "executive privilege", Congress shops around for a special prosecutor to go after Alberto Gonzales who most certainly lied to Congress.
(Shermer news conference Press Conference on Gonzales Special Counsel Investigation]

Lying to Congress is something Bushies will have trouble covering or defending with assertions of "executive privilege". Gonzales is to Bush as Heydrich was to Hitler --an enabler tasked with trying to make crimes legal after they've already been committed. Sen. Leahy stated "We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year." Indeed! Bush was firing every attorney whose opinions were based on law rather than the caprice of a would-be dictator.

"It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to US attorneys."--Washington Post

The "rule of law" is to have an enforcement mechanism. If 'a' rogue 'President', like Bush, refuses to prosecute, the Congress must impeach. If Congress asserts something must be done, but is not willing to back that claim with impeachment, then Congress makes itself irrelevant, a mere rubber stamp. What if I were to tell you that Congress has already gone home? Did anyone notice?

When Bush sought 'powers' beyond those delegated in the Constitution, 911 had not yet occurred. When Bush sought to exempt US soldiers from war crimes prosecution, 911 was months away. Had Bush foreseen the events of 911 psychically or had he, in fact, planned them with Dick Cheney? What 'forbidden knowledge' or, more realistically, what 'secret plots' had he already hatched to foment a dictatorship that would exploit 'terrorism' in order to assume the powers of a dictatorship, abrogate habeas corpus, and roll back the Bill of Rights? Certainly, no one but Bush --or those who had planned to help him perpetrate them --would have or could have foreseen that US atrocities at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and a gulag archipelago of US torture centers throughout eastern Europe would have necessitated measures in advance to get them off the hook, measures that would put Bush, US brass and members of his criminal junta above the law! This measure amounts to a criminal administration positioning itself --in advance --to exploit the crime of 911. It is more evidence that 911 was anticipated. It is evidence that 911 was an inside job.

Additional resources

• ‘History will not judge this kindly’
• How a Federal Grand Jury Could Indict Bush/Cheney (hint, hint)
• Jean-Paul Sartre, Americans and Their Myths
• Modest Improvements Cannot Save an Inherently Flawed Process at Guantánamo
• Today's Must Read
• What are the "Inherent" Powers of the President? How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Rights
• DoJ Makes It Official: Contempt Stops in Congress
BREAKING: Senate Committee Issues Subpoenas to Rove and Deputy
• Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
• A Republic, If We Can Keep It.
• "We Need An Attorney General Who Can Tell the Truth"

---

---

Call Out the Instigator; There's Something in the Air!

A revolution is justified! Since King John signed the Magna Carta, no monarch in our tradition has successfully assumed powers that are now claimed and assumed by the Bush/Cheney regime.

Revolutions often begin with an indictment of those in power, literally, a list of crimes or atrocities committed against the people themselves. Over a period of some centuries, essential principles were won and established. Kings have been deposed and executed for less flagrant abuses than those that must be charged to George W. Bush.

• Bush's 'unitary executive' doctrine places Bush above the law;
• Bush has decreed an end to habeas corpus
• Bush has denied other basic rights guaranteed the people in the Bill of Rights.

In effect, Bush has re-written the US Constitution. He has claimed dictatorial powers because the nation was at war but--significantly --the nation was and remains at war because Bush conducted an orchestrated campaign of bald-faced lies in order to begin the war. This is the case that must be made when Bush is compelled to stand trial for high treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Capital crimes.

It's not that they lied about justifications for war, but in their failure to allow oversight into the processes that produced those lies. It's not in the firing of federal attorneys and the refusal to substantiate the firings, but in the pure partisanship of their actions. It's not their countless refusals to comply with subpoenas from Congress or Freedom of Information Act from the people, but in their arrogated stance, setting themselves above the requirements themselves.

Once when challenged for his unwillingness to submit to the rule of law in an obvious snub of the Constitution, Bush screamed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

And thus our Constitution has now become what Bush has made it. This annihilation of the foundational document of our republic was orchestrated by a president who swore an oath of honor to protect it, a devout Christian who promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office.

Congress, in its acquiescence and subservience, is equally culpable. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced, "impeachment is off the table," she not only absolved Bush of all previous transgressions but paved a figurative superhighway for any to come. There's a reason Congress's approval ratings are even lower than the administration's.

--Michael Abraham, Bush's legacy is the end of law

Until these issue are addressed, the primary process seems all but irrelevant. Those candidates daring to address these questions were all but ignored --victims of the media and an absurd primary process that is designed to weed out anyone wishing to conduct a real debate, anyone not controlled or given a wink and a nod by the MSM. But --there are signs that a 'revolution' of sorts may be afoot.

Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution.

More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere — if they're not impeached first.

In Brattleboro, the vote was 2,012-1,795. In Marlboro, which held a town meeting on the issue, it was 43-25 with three abstentions.

"I hope the one thing that people take from this is, 'Hey, it can be done,'" said Kurt Daims, 54, who organized the petition drive that led to the Brattleboro vote.

--Vt. Towns Approve Bush 'Indictment'

One hopes these indictments address the fundamental treason from which all other administration crimes followed, that is, Bush put himself above the law of the land. The US Constitution, drafted by the 'founders' and duly ratified by the people of the United States affirms as a principle of law the very source of sovereignty: the people themselves.

In putting himself above the law, Bush claims absolute powers that even European monarchs dared not claim. Certainly, when those European Monarchs found themselves 'outside the law', they were often 'brought to book' for violating it. King John was literally forced to concede to the principles of Magna Carta. Later, Charles I, when he presumed to authority above that of Parliament, was prodded out a window in the Banqueting House in White Hall where, on a makeshift platform, his head was chopped off by a French swordsman imported for the occasion.

Bush could not have placed himself above the law without help from Republicans of all stripes as well as timely betrayals and sellouts by key Democrats. Without effective opposition, Bush-Cheney were able to assume a "unitary executive", a dubious doctrine without precedent in either American history or English Common Law to which we are heir. This Republican-birthed 'doctrine' --utter claptrap --places Bush above regulation, above oversight or supervision, above the decisions of the courts, including the Supreme Court, above laws passed by Congress, above responsibility to the people. It is treasonous on its face. Tragically, I don't hear the candidates talking about this. All I hear from the 'candidates' is eyewash, focus group approved monkey chatter, platitudes and bullshit!

"[Since Watergate] I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. ... One of the things that I feel an obligation [to do] ... is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."

--VP Dick Cheney, [Interview with Cokie Roberts] New York Times, Recent Flexing of Presidential Powers Had Personal Roots in Ford White House, SCOTT SHANE. January 2002,

There exists now sufficient probable cause to formally charge Dick Cheney with the crime of mass murder in connection with his 'supervisory role' on 911. Even before 911 consolidated the powers of the Bush/Cheney 'administration', it was clear that real power in the US had accrued to an increasingly tiny elite, what had been called a "commercial class".

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

--Steve Kangas, The Origins of the Overclass [as quoted here: How the CIA Created a Ruling, Corporate Overclass in America]

The trend is not new and history is, indeed, our guide. Throughout the sixteenth century, the grandfathers of the Parliamentarians, were the source of the monarchy’s strength. Parliament had supported efforts by Henry VII and Henry VIII and Elizabeth to police England. The specter of a foreign enemy was often raised. In our own time, the GOP has become, increasingly, a party of privilege thanks to inequitable tax cuts by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Jobs have been exported, proverty has increased. Three GOP Presidents since 1980 have hollowed out American industry and subverted the dollar as they made the rich much richer and the poor much poorer.

These are reason enough to forever bar the GOP from positions of responsibility and that includes John McCain --the biggest political disappointment since Dan Quayle compared himself to JFK. Historically, revolutions are fought for considerably less than what is at stake now!

People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken.

--Che Guevara, General Principles of Guerilla Warfare

Thomas Jefferson had articulated the same principle in a document that is, supposedly, revered by Americans: the Declaration of Independence, in effect, an indictment of King George.

...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Our own declaration of independence of the illegitimate regime of the liar and criminal that has seized the White House must include an indictment of both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. A true revolution must include the impeachment, trial and removal of GWB and all his crooked henchmen. It must declare undone all the many harms done to the Constitution by Bush.

It is hoped that the actions taken in Vermont are but the beginning of a revolution.

Brattleboro, Vermont passes indictment of Bush and Cheney To be arrested in Brattleboro "if they are not duly impeached"

The courageous people of Brattleboro, Vermont have taken the lead! Frustrated that elected officials have refused to introduce articles of impeachment in defiance of their constituents' demands, the people of Brattelboro voted to direct town officials to draw up indictment papers against George Bush and Dick Cheney for violating their oath of office.

The Brattleboro vote took place during the Tuesday's Vermont primary election. Bush supporters launched a major campaign to discredit the referendum resolution and the organizers. Yet the resolution passed by a vote of 2012 in favor to 1795 against.

"Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?" The people of Brattleboro answered, "yes!"

The indictment means that Bush and Cheney can be arrested for criminal acts should they ever enter Brattleboro. The indictment would go into effect after Bush and Cheney leave office.

The Brattleboro resolution is becoming a powerful organizing model for cities and towns around the country. The impeachment movement has sunk deep roots throughout this country. The people of the United States are demanding not only that the Constitution be restored, but that the President, Vice President and other officials be held accountable for committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Brattleboro resolution shows that even where Congressional representatives are refusing to follow the majority sentiment demanding impeachment, that the people themselves can take action.

Please make an urgently needed donation so that we can continue to build this momentum. The movement can't do it without your continuing support. Please click this link to make a generous donation online or to get information to write a check.
When Ramsey Clark launched the ImpeachBush / VoteToImpeach.org movement in January 2003 he sparked something entirely new. In the face of the aggression and arrogance of the Bush Administration, he launched a movement for the people to take back the Constitution. In Vermont, more than 40 town councils voted in favor of impeachment. Throughout California and in the other states of the union, the grassroots movement has put impeachment on the table through referendum, resolutions, demonstrations, rallies, newspaper ads and door-to-door petitioning.

In the next two weeks, ImpeachBush.org is joining with the anti-war movement for mass protests around the country. We are organizing buses, car caravans, printing placards and banners and making sure the call for Impeachment resounds on this coming 5th anniversary of the criminal war in Iraq. These will be locally and regionally coordinated mass actions in cities and towns throughout the country. Please click here to donate to this effort.

The movement is spreading because of the commitment and sacrifice of thousands of individuals who are engaged as volunteers in day-to-day organizing. Everyone should be proud of their work because this is a movement that belongs to all of us.

SUPPORT THE REVOLUTION:
Please make an urgently needed donation so that we can continue to build this momentum. The movement can't do it without your continuing support. Please click this link to make a generous donation online or to get information to write a check.

Another important beginning can be found in the text of an indictment of George W. Bush prepared by former Federal Prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega. All this indictment needs is a courageous Federal Judge and a Federal Grand Jury, which a Federal judge can convene upon his/her own motion. I found the following steps for taking back America on The Republican Party Offers A Choice: "Fascism Or Anarchy?":

• The key goal of "total anarchy" is to make the leadership of the Republican Party, and their supporters, so uncomfortable that they will run off and hide in fear for their bank accounts and their lives. This level of discomfort will make the GOP's key supporters want to stop supporting the Republican's fascist ideology and they will want to seek a new democratic ideology that can offer them a much more stable, secure, and friendly form of government.
  
• Bring world wide attention to our cause. This can be done through mass resignations by the Democrats in Congress, mass education efforts, by boycotting of all businesses and real estate owned by the GOP's key supporters, by lobbying local law enforcement to join the fight, and by staging mass protest and demonstrations. If this step is successful no other steps will be necessary.
  
  
• Hold mass protest in public, and at the private homes of the GOP's members and the private homes of their key financial backers. If they leave follow them. If they run, run after them. And if they fight then we must fight back even harder. The key is to make them extremely uncomfortable until they realize that their cause is no longer winnable because their risk/reward ratio has turned negative. If this step is successful no other steps will be necessary.
  
  
• Take control of key roads, businesses, homes, and government buildings. The purpose is not necessarily to destroy but to take control and begin to organize a new government, new businesses, and a new social structure. If this step is successful no other steps will be necessary.
If these three steps fail then it will be time for the final step and last hope of our democracy, REVOLUTION. Load your guns, dig in, and fight for your life and the lives of your family.

Call Out the Instigator, "There's Something in the Air!"

Update from the Bush police state --another reason for revolution now:

Journalist Persecuted For Documenting Bush Family Connections to Nazi Regime

The connection between the Bush family and the Nazi regime just so happens to be well-documented in the National Archives and the U.S. Congressional Record.

And this treasonous connection, one that should have been dealt with a long time ago, was finally brought to light in 2003 by investigative reporter, John Buchanan, in an article first appearing in the New Hampshire Gazette.

Finally, after 60 years of treasonous silence by politicians and the media, the truth about how the Bush family came forward and how they were nothing more than two-bit traitors and war profiteers.

But instead of praise, Buchanan was shunned and then discredited by the mainstream media, his story ridiculed and then placed in the black hole of conspiracy propaganda read by extremists on the internet.

Instead of the treasonous information ending the Bush family reign of terror, it demonstrated just how treasonous, diabolical and devious the government and media had become.

Instead of using this information to once and for corral the Bush family and its murderous past, the Nazi-like stranglehold on America surfaced instead, rearing its ugly head as Daddy Bush called out the attack dogs to once and for all silence Buchanan.

“I found out the hard way how the Bush family tries to silence people trying to tell the truth, especially when you cross the line,” said Buchanan Thursday while appearing on Greg Szymanski’s radio show, The Investigative Journal. “I was so na?ve. I never thought what happened to me could happen in America, especially for a person like me who believes in freedom of speech. But I found out quickly freedom of speech doesn’t exist in America when you begin uncovering the truth about the Bush family.”

What Buchanan meant by “finding out the hard way” was that the Bush attack dogs, like true Nazis, on two separate occasions hauled him into custody, accusing him of plotting to kill the President, accusations that were of course unfounded but used as a scare tactic.

“I have to admit I was frightened to death because I thought at any time for no reason they could haul me away,” said Buchanan, adding that his story led to him running for President of the United States in 2004, leading to more than respectable showing in the New Hampshire primaries.

“When I flew into Washington D.C. to give a speech at the press club after the New Hampshire primaries, turned out to be the first time I was apprehended by agents and held against my will for two hours,” recalled Buchanan, adding that after he was released and gave his speech, he decided to take a train home to Florida instead of flying.

“I have to admit I was worried about what was going to happen when I returned home to the state controlled by Jeb, the brother of the President.”

And Buchanan’s worries quickly turned into a nightmare of serious legal proportions, being arrested on a bogus14-count felony complaint for aggravated stalking against a victim the state failed to produce.

A story appearing on August 14, 2004 had this to say about the Buchanan arrest:

Has Campaigning Against Bush Now Become ‘Stalking’

“On February 4, while on his way to speak at an evening meeting of the National Press Club, John was kidnapped by unidentified federal agents who claimed to be Secret Service officers but apparently were not.

“Four days later, upon his return home, John was arrested again. This time, on phony criminal charges contained in a 14-count felony complaint for aggravated stalking against a victim the state has failed to produce.

“One is left to conclude that the “victim” is one George W. Bush. If so, that means that Buchanan’s Constitutionally protected right to politically challenge a fellow Republican has been deemed “stalking.”"

What you can do to help impeach, remove and indict the gang of murderous criminals who have seized control of the OUR government:

How to Get Your Town or City to Indict Bush and Cheney

Indictment resolutions passed on March 4, 2008, in Brattleboro and Marlboro, Vermont, and spread from there. For full list of towns see this list.

This resource page will be expanded as this campaign grows and develops. This extensive kit for passing impeachment resolutions will be helpful. Much of the same advice applies.

We can begin with the example of Brattleboro, Vermont, which voted on and passed this question on March 4, 2008:

"Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities, and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro police, pursuant to the above mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecuted or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"

For help in placing similar language on the ballot in your town or in passing a similar measure through your city council, contact Dan DeWalt: patrioticresponse@yahoo.com

For legal expertise on the force of these initiatives, contact Harold Burbank at haroldburbank@cmcast.net

About the Brattleboro Indictment Resolution:

At first glimmer, the article (the “Indictment Resolution”) that will appear the ballot on this Tuesday — the article which, as you know, has been eliciting many different reactions from townspeople — was a largely symbolic gesture, something conceived of as a “container” for the moral outrage that Americans justifiably felt. It was born simply out of the devastating realization that our Constitution and entire system of government were — and still are — under assault, and that such extraordinary circumstances sometimes call for extraordinary measures. But we soon learned that the initiative also had real legal teeth...please read on! ...

• Approval Voting Home Page
  
• Approval Voting
• Discover

Subscribe

GOP, Bush, Constitution, Treason

Spread the word