ENOUGH IS ENOUGH --DOWN WITH COPS!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

My comments are inspired by a story that Jay Diamond had posted on Facebook:

Federal investigators have opened an inquiry into the tragic case of a high school student in Bastrop County, Tex., who suffered severe brain damage and nearly died last fall after a deputy sheriff shocked him with a Taser, a high voltage electronic weapon.
In North Carolina, civil rights lawyers have filed a complaint with the Justice Department, charging the Wake County school system with violating the constitutional rights of minority children by subjecting them to discriminatory arrest practices and brutality by police officers assigned to schools. In one nightmarish case described in the complaint, a disabled 15-year-old was shocked with a Taser three times during an interrogation at school, resulting in punctured lungs. And in New York, civil rights lawyers have sued the city of Syracuse on behalf of two students. One was shocked three times, not for threatening behavior but for lying on the floor and crying, they say, and another was shocked while trying to break up a fight.

--Torturing Children at School

Psychopathic cops should be locked up and tried; in those cases resulting in death i.e, "murder", they should be tried and, when found guilty, executed!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
 
I covered the trial of two Houston cops who were charged with having beaten hell out of an Hispanic war hero who got a little rowdy in club. Twenty-three year old Joe Campos Torres [at right], a 23-year-old Vietnam Veteran, was was beaten by several Houston police officers and then taken to jail. The jailer refused to admit him and ordered the cops to hospitalize him. Instead, the cops (whose trial I covered) took him --in the dead of night --to a bridge over Buffalo Bayou where they beat him to a pulp. Just barely alive, he was leveraged over the bridge and dropped into the inky dark waters of buffalo bayou some 15 ft below.He drowned.

I covered the trial after both cops were charged for murder. Both were acquitted! Outrageous! His death sparked protests and the outcome of the trial was met with rioting.

It is apparent to me that "police brutality" has only gotten worse, has spread like a virus, and routinely goes un-investigated, un-punished! It is apparent to me that COPS have gotten even worse, increasingly psychopathic, poorly trained and recruited from among the DREGS OF SOCIETY.

In a civilized society, a police force is expected to uphold the "rule of law"; they are not required or expected to take the law into their own hands. At the very least, rogue and criminal cops must be arrested, arraigned and made to stand trial for felonies to include assault and battery and murder!
My two cents worth: a nation, an empire is finished when it cannot rule itself, when it cannot distinguish between the rule of law and the ABUSE of law!

---

---

GOP Hero, Saint Thomas More, was a Communist

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Thomas More --now 'Saint Thomas More' --was surely the most prominent “secular humanist” in England during the reign of Henry VIII. What makes More a “humanist”, like his friend Erasmus, is his belief in the perfectibility of humankind. What makes More a “secularist” was his insistence, unto his own death, in the separation of “God’s law” and “man’s law”, a principle that we refer to as the separation of Church and State.  Lest we forget, More died at the hands of an all powerful "state". Though it was not Henry VIII who said l'etat, c'est moi he might as well have done.

When the GOP embarked upon its unholy crusade to impeach Bill Clinton, it's many flacks tried to lend an imprimatur of legitimacy to their schemes by invoking the name of St/Sir Thomas More.

Typically, the GOP and prosecutor Kenneth Star specifically, mangled More and, in the process, proved themselves to be a party of mediocre intellects, opportunists, shallow sophists, perhaps, liars to a person! The following excerpt from Starr's interview with Diane Sawyer...

Kenneth Starr: Well, I love the letter and the spirit of the law, but it`s the letter of the law that protects us all. And, you know, St. Thomas Moore, Sir Thomas Moore put it so elegantly, you know, in A Man For All Seasons. He took the law very seriously and said, `That`s what protects us. It`s not the will of a human being. It`s not Henry VIII`s will. Henry VIII is under the law. We are all equal under the law.

In fact --no where in the play A Man For All Seasons did the character of Sir Thomas More say anything resembling that. More defended the obedience to "...man`s law, not God`s" [that makes More a secular humanist --a bad word among many throughout the right wing] and never made reference to either Henry VIII's law by name or description. The actual exchange that both David Schippers and Starr are both so fond of misquoting is as follows:

Roper: So now you`d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get at the Devil?
Roper: I`d cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh! (advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you --where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws --man's laws, not God's [emphasis mine]--and if you cut them down --and you’re just the man to do it --d`you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I`d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety`s sake.

In yet another memorable exchange:

Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

The dialogue above was written by Robert Bolt for the play and movie: A Man for All Seasons. But should you want to read the original More you will find comments equally biting, equally witty, comments that will most certainly curl the hair of modern right wing reactionaries and intellectual gnomes! More, they will charge, is a socialist for his comments having to do with the business class:

...so God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth. They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be.

--Of the Religions in Utopia, St. Thomas More

Clearly, none of the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton had understood the movie. None of them had bothered to learn anything about their “hero” other than what they had seen in a movie. Indeed, this film is among the best movies ever made. Sadly, the real meaning of the film was lost on Kenneth Starr. He came away from it having learned all the wrong lessons and that may be worse than having learned nothing at all.

---

---

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever filed against him. No 'probable cause' has been demanded of his captors by any judge. He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' simply decrees one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. In this case there is no 'probable cause' whatsoever that Assange committed any crime. No formal charges have been filed against him! Officially, he has not even been accused of a specific crime. He is a political prisoner. He is a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

TYRANNY

The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376 AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.

--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims

This is an outrage! Everyone should be outraged! If Julian Assange can be imprisoned though NO CHARGES have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.

Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.

--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law. It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him HEARD together with the probable cause that he violated ANY LAWS WHATSOEVER. If the 'authorities' don't even have enough 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!

---

---

Targets of Revolution

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

America is ruled and held hostage by what Sir Thomas More would have called a 'conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth'. Today, that conspiracy is the 'Military-Industrial Complex', the name given it by the last honest Republican--Dwight David Eisenhower. 'Ike' was a real hero --not a phony like Billo Reilly, not a phony like Rush 'lard ass' Limbaugh! Not a phony like almost every right wingnut on TV, radio, CNN or FOX.

This fascist domination of American life and debate is made possible only because people have bought into a lie, the pernicious notion called 'corporate personhood'. That SCOTUS, called SCROTUS by critics, would presume to rationalize and legalize what St. Thomas More called a 'conspiracy of rich men' is but the symptom of the increasingly sick American society, the increasingly perverse ruling elite of just one percent of the population.

Keep this in mind: this ruling one percent owns more than all of the rest of us combined. This ruling one percent presumes a moral superiority because they are filthy rich and you are not. They are not superior to us in any way whatsoever. Wealth is not evidence of character nor is character responsible for its creation. The wealthy kid themselves. They are not morally superior and, in many instances, quite the opposite is true.

This ruling one percent rules, not because they are right but because they can exercise raw power over the government, the media, the courts!

This ruling one percent rules not because they are right but because they can get away with it!

What if you just said NO?

What if you just told them to FUCK OFF!?

What if you embarked upon and practiced the philosophy of Ghandi --Civil Disobedience?

What if the U.S. Government of fascists, usurpers, lobbyists, K-Street kiss-ups, and, most importantly the M.I.C. were held to account for their capital war crimes?

What if these war criminals were sentenced to hang as Nazi war criminals were hanged at Nuremberg for the same crimes?

Try the War Criminals for War Crimes

If you have not heard or read: GWB and almost every decision maker in his administration is guilty of capital war crimes, international laws to which the U.S. is signatory and Federal Laws to which every American is subject. See: U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. These are federal laws ignored and violated by George W. Bush, laws which specify the death penalty for violations. George W. Bush could be hanged when found guilty. Bush may never stand trial because, in America, only the poor are executed. The very rich get away with it. Texas is the specimen that proves that what I have said is accurate. Texas is called the 'gulag state' for good reason. Texas, as remade in the image of Bush/Perry and other fascists have created a hell-hole in which the victims of their neglect of education turn to crime. Texas is called the 'gulag state' and may well lead the nation in murders. Conveniently for the GOP, the prisons are owned and operated by corporations which most certainly contributed heavily to the Texas GOP.

St. Thomas More: "A Conspiracy of Rich Men"

Because mere legal abstractions are accorded rights that should belong only to real, living, flesh and blood people, corporations are given license to lie about misdeeds, incompetence and corporate criminality. A saint --St. Thomas More --described just such a ruling cabal during the reign of King Henry VIII. More called it a 'a conspiracy of rich men!'

St. Thomas More was absolutely correct! Everything said in his 'Utopia' is as relevant today as it was in the 16th Century. There are very good reasons for canonization. Who among us had that kind of courage? Who among us would face death courageously rather than compromise his soul with a lie?

I believe that for More at any rate it was harder to kill than to die, and this may help explain his otherwise incredible good humor upon the scaffold. But he did not shrink from either killing or dying. He did not hold that the state must be ideologically neutral, must be indifferent to what is ultimately true and false, right and wrong, must be content to practice the art of the possible in a less than perfect universe. It never occurred to More or his contemporaries that the state should trouble itself with problems of sanitation or urban development, any more than it occurs to us that the state should support the Christian religion because the Christian religion is true. For, we ask ourselves with a flutter of the mind, what if it is not true? More would have understood us no more easily than we understand him. For we are all humanitarians now, nineteenth century positivists or twentieth century libertarians or technocrats or hedonists. And conscience is a voice deep within ourselves which no one else can hear.

So there is for us something particularly beguiling about Mr. Bolt's brilliantly argued thesis in the play, that More was a martyr to the lonely existential self, "a hero of self-hood," as Mr. Bolt puts it.

A man takes an oath only when he wants to commit himself quite exceptionally . . . . Of course it's much less effective now that for most of us the actual words of the oath are not much more than impressive mumbo jumbo ...But though few of us have anything in ourselves like an immortal soul which we regard as absolutely inviolate, yet most of us still feel something which we should prefer, on the whole, not to violate. It may be that a clear sense of the self can only crystallize around something transcendental, in which case our prospects look poor, for we are rightly committed to the rational. I think the paramount gift of our thinkers, artists and . . . men of science should labor to get for us is a sense of selfhood without resort to magic.¹¹

The historian, dry and finicky, can only reply that this "hero of selfhood" and therefore this "man for all seasons" is radically different from the person so painfully, so incompletely reconstructed from the evidence that has come down to us. It is not that Mr. Bolt's presentation of More is vulgar or superficial — so often the fate of historical personages at the hands of less skilled artists. On the contrary, Mr. Bolt's sympathy for his subject is so deep that one senses it in every lilting line he has written. If anything, the playgoer or moviegoer will find in A Man for All Seasonsconfirmation of Swift's observation that More was "the person of the greatest virtue this kingdom ever produced," and of the more recent judgment of Hugh Trevor-Roper

— a contemporary historian not much given to compliments even to the dead — that More was "the first great Englishman whom we feel that we know, the most saintly of humanists, the most human of saints, the universal man of our cool northern renaissance."¹²

--MARVIN O'CONNELL, A Man for all Seasons: an Historian's Demur

The theft of America's wealth was accomplished by corporate influence upon a civilian structure that left alone is relatively benign. The problem is not so much government itself but 'K Street', a major thoroughfare in Washington where the numerous think tanks, lobbyists and advocacy groups maintain offices! 'People' themselves cannot be heard through the din they throw up. Until 'K-street' and the 'legal personhood' of corporations is smashed, the actual offices of government are beyond the reach of the people they were intended to serve. K-street will be served ---but not you! If Mr. Smith could see Washington today!!

The public ownership of the airwaves had been a well-established legal principle, upheld by law and court decisions until it was all overturned during the administration of Ronald Reagan. It was in the Reagan years that the laws were re-written to make possible the big media monopolies, the concentration of ownership by Clear Channel et al. It was under Ronald Reagan that the Fairness Doctrine made possible the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. It was under Ronald Reagan than a pernicious 'right wing revolution' --what St. Thomas More would have called a 'conspiracy of rich men' --stole the people's airwaves and made possible Bush's dictatorship.

It's time to wage the revolution.

A line in Shakespeare's Henry VI reads: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!" In this case, we spare those lawyers who may help us take back the media! My revision of Shakespeare is:

The first thing we do is take back the media.

It was the Communications Act of 1934 that made law the principle that the airwaves belonged to the people. It was left to Ronald Reagan to dismantle that principle and thus pave the way for the consolidation of the U.S. media into very few hands. Just five to seven major, huge corporations own the major media outlets in the United States. As a result, your access to media is limited or non-existent. Next --they will try to control the internet. My critics will rejoice. But you, dear reader, will be likewise be silenced. There are no winners when the major corporations presume to shut us all up! For good!

A good second step involves smashing the 'media' lobby on K street. We need to get over the idea that corporations have a right to lobby the government! Corporations are not people and, as far as I am concerned, have no rights whatsoever. Someone, show me a principle of science or law which credibly equates living tissue with legal abstractions and cubicles!

Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the GOP, one is hard pressed to find in any US market, a locally owned radio station or TV outlet. Before Reagan, it was not unusual to find locally owned radio and TV stations in small to major markets across the nation. Now ---it seems --all are owned by some five to seven major conglomerates.

If we, the people, should declare it so, corporations themselves might just be written out of existence. And good riddance! Real people have 'rights'. Legal abstractions do not. The idea that an artificial, legal construct --a 'conspiracy of rich men' --has inherent or inalienable rights is pure bullshit. It's absurd on its face. How did this idiotic idea become so ingrained?

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!

We --a revolution of the people --shall make the laws under the common law and ancient principles that declare people not only have rights but are, in fact, sovereign! Should we the people so decree, Fox and the handful of huge corporations that presume to tell us what to do and what to believe, have neither right nor privileges, then Fox and the handful of huge corporations will be either shut down or taken over!

Begin by organizing and insisting upon an FCC with teeth! Insist upon restoring the Fairness Doctrine! Insist upon limitations to corporate ownership of media or prohibiting corporation ownership outright! Remember --'legal abstractions' have NO rights and certainly not those of 'real people'. Insist upon ownership rules that break up the media monopolies. Measures like this existed before Ronald Reagan began an assault upon the rights for the benefit of abstractions, before the GOP conspired with More's 'conspiracy of rich men'.

More generally, the people have paid for Reagan/GOP fascism with the truth itself. Therefore, wage revolution against corporate 'person-hood'. In the absence of corporate influence, government will simply have no choice but to respond to real people or just disband. Certainly, as the fall of Rome proves, ineffective, top-heavy bureaucracies whose only purpose is the waging of wars of self-perpetuation and aggression, are simply not needed.

Not surprisingly, the corporations have it the wrong way around again. Green energy is NOT the problem; it is rather the solution. It's corporations that resist or block the development of 'green energy' that are the problem. As I learned in broadcasting --if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. In America, the corporations ARE the problem. The very concept of 'corporation' is institutionalized mental constipation, a block against reason and inquiry.

...when I consider and weigh in my mind all these commonwealths, which nowadays anywhere do flourish, so God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.

They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws.

But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots!

--Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia

---

---

Obama Must Restore the 'Rule of Law'

Few Presidents-elect face challenges equal to those that await Barack Obama, who will now preside over a nation best described as 'GOP occupied territory'. Bush presumed to rule as 'imperator', by decree, far beyond the President's 'job description' as it was written by our founders. Bush borrowed from Nixon phrases like 'executive privilege' to rationalize abuses of power and rule by decree. Bush assigned to John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales the tasks of making legal --after the fact --the seemingly innumerable crimes he had committed against the US Constitution and the sovereign people of the US, in other words, all the crimes American colonists had charged to George III.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, July 4, 1776.

By 'rule of law' I mean the very source of our sovereignty: the US Constitution, called a 'goddamned piece of paper' by Bush. I mean the laws and, as well, the veneration accorded them by the citizens of these United States. I use the phrase the 'rule of law' to mean the culture from which our Bill of Rights derived and is sustained. I cite these principles because they are and should be inseparable from our national identity, because they are what it means to be 'American'.

It now falls to Barack Obama to restore America's reputation all over the world and to undo at home the harm that has been done our republic, our culture, and our national identity. It falls to Barack Obama to make right the wrongs, to steer the ship of state. At this link Bush administration vs. the US Constitution, you will find an extensively documented survey of Bush's seemingly innumerable assaults upon the rule of law in America.

George Bush's Violations Of The Constitution

No one can restore the 'rule of law' without addressing first the source of its demise. In America, the 'rule of law' fell to an 'authoritarian', top-down mentality which seeks out and exploits its complementary mindset --the throng of submissive GOP followers. It is a dysfunctional, destructive mindset which, if allowed to fester, will eventually dry rot the foundations of our republic.

Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however - and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves.

In my book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, I set forth the facts regarding the consequences of the Republicans' controlling government for too many years. No Republican - nor anyone else, for that matter - has refuted these facts, and for good reason: They are irrefutable.

--John Dean, The Evidence Establishes, without Question, that Republican Rule Is Dangerous, Findlaw

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, A Climate of Fear is Maintained
• 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

---

---

The Enemy is Us!

The very word 'Frankenstein' has come to mean 'monsters of our own creation' but more generally, monsters beyond our control. 'Frankenstein' has come to symbolize the Faustian bargain made by man with his own technology. The '50's Sci-Fi classic, Forbidden Planet, echoed Shakespeare's The Tempest which, likewise, dealt with the same theme. [See: Monsters From the ID]

The world is now threatened with several forms of extinction:

• a slow demise from the disregard with which we have treated our environment;
• a descent into either lawlessness or fascism for our neglect of the rule of law;
• the prospect of a quick but not painless end from nuclear annihilation.

These monsters threaten to destroy us utterly. These monsters are our own creations. These monsters are the by-products of the Faustian bargain mankind has made with the universe. These monsters are 'Frankensteins' of our creation. Or, as Pogo might have put it: 'We have seen the enemy and it is us!"

The worst crimes were dared by few, practiced by more, but tolerated by all

--Tacitus, Annals (writing of the decline of Rome)

Frankenstein

Over the course of time, Frankenstein's monster has usurped the very name of his creator, Victor Frankenstein, the precocious student of natural philosophy from Geneva, where Mary Shelley was living with two gifted poets, her husband, Percy, and George Gordon, Lord Byron, when she conceived the strange Gothic tale. A period of bad weather in Switzerland bred a compact between Byron, Percy, and Mary, that while at the Villa Diodati, each should write the kind of story the trio were so enjoying reading.

Numerous twentieth-century films attest to the story's durability, perhaps because of what science has become in western society over the past two centuries. The subtitle, "The Modern Prometheus," suggests the mythic dimensions of the three-fold tale.

The author, incredibly not quite nineteen at the time of composition (and, moreover, a teenaged mother), draws a correspondence between young Frankenstein's hope of scientific glory prompting him to manufacture a monster and God's creating the archangel who would become the rebel Satan. God's making of man is also at issue in the epigraph that Mary Shelley takes from Milton's Christian epic of creation and original sin, Paradise Lost.

--Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" (1818)

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

Subscribe

GOP, Bush, Evil, Tyranny

Spread the word

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 Unitary Executive Ends the Rule of Law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers

Bush has decreed his "long term plan" for Iraq, committing the US, without Congressional authority, to a permanent presence. His decree is a poke in the eye to the public, the congress, the rule of law! Bush believes himself to be above the rule of law, the authority of Congress and the courts. When England was confronted by Charles I, a monarch who likewise presumed to be above Parliament, the English simply marched Charles out onto an improvised platform at the Banqueting House in Whitehall where they proceeded to chop off his head!

President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.

After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.

By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.

--Boston Globe, Bush plan for Iraq would be a first

I had wondered why I am so bored with the primary process, this field of candidates, the coverage, the speeches, what passes for debate. I am bored because it's all as beside the point as the medieval debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! It might as well have been scripted and given what I've learned about political consulting --it is scripted! I've heard all the talking points in focus groups. I can predict every question and every answer. This 'election' is for show! This election is a sop to those who have not gotten the news: American Democracy is over. Bush rules by decree. If he should decide to hang around, who's 'gonna' throw him out? The Military? Nope! The Congress? Nope! The Supreme Court? Stop me! My sides are hurting!

Everyone is just playing their roles. It is as if the candidates of both major parties had a conference and decided: we won't talk about how George W. Bush has ended, perhaps forever, the rule of law in the United States. Constitution: R.I.P! You won't know what you had until it's gone.

Unless something is done, you will just have to get used to more stories about how innocent folk get tasered, jailed, or roughed up for daring to practice 'free speech'. Get used to a permanent US presence in Iraq! Get used to Bush's evil smirk! Get used to GOP bullshit! Get used to being spied on at the mall, in your car, even at home with devices that can literally see through walls. Those devices exist.

Everyone, it seems, from Bill Maher on Larry King Live to Virginia Tech Professor Theodore Fuller, believes Bush will be remembered as the very worst President in US history. Fuller's list includes the perpetual nature of Bush's obvious failure in Iraq. It includes Bush's failure to reform Social Security, though I am suspicious of efforts to "reform" what is, in fact, the Government's only success story. What I have not heard except via the 'blogosphere' is why! The 'why' should top the list and should have been blazened atop every major daily in the nation. Instead, the truth is whispered if at all: Bush destroyed the very concept of the "rule of law" and, more specifically, "Due Process of Law" because he is the tool of America's moneyed 'elite'.

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

Bush could not have put 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 have enabled a "unitary executive"! A dubious doctrine without precedent in American history, it is the belief that the "President" is above regulation, above oversight or supervision, above the decisions of the courts, including the Supreme Court, above laws passed by Congress, above all responsibility to the people.

"[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,

I submit to Bush, Cheney, their NEOCON base, the Republican party, and assorted enablers inside the Democratic party that this "doctrine" is utter bullshit! Not even European monarchs --at the very height of their power and influence --could boast or wield such power.

It is ironic that at the height of his "power", Bush is among the least popular "Presidents" in American history. What then is the source of his power? Bush, addressing a gathering of well-heeled Republicans and other representatives of corporate power called them "his base". And --so they were. 'They' are an increasingly tiny elite which alone benefits from GOP tax cuts and the enrichment of the Military/Industrial complex.

The influence of the cabal begins at Yale, where Skull and Bones has appropriated university funds for its own use, leaving the school virtually impoverished. Skull and Bones' corporate shell, the Russell Trust Association, owns nearly all of the university's real estate, as well as most of the land in Connecticut. Skull and Bones has controlled Yale's faculty and campus publications so that students cannot speak openly about it. "Year by year," the campus's only anti-society publication stated during its brief tenure in 1873, "the deadly evil is growing."

The year in the tomb at Yale instills within members an unwavering loyalty to Skull and Bones. Members have been known to stab their Skull and Bones pins into their skin to keep them in place during swimming or bathing. The knights (as the student members are called) learn quickly that their allegiance to the society must supersede all else: family, friendships, country, God. They are taught that once they get out into the world, they are expected to reach positions of prominence so that they can further elevate the society's status and help promote the standing of their fellow Bonesmen.

--Alexandra Robbins, George W. Bush and the Brotherhood of Death, 'Secrets of the Tomb' Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power

The movies have discovered Skull and Bones. The most recent entry, The Good Shepherd, directed by Robert de Niro, explores a symbiotic relationship between Yale's super secret Skull and Bones and the equally secret CIA. Another thriller advertises itself with a Hollywood logline: A secret society so powerful, it can give you anything…at a price., the subtitle to The Skulls, a new thriller by Rob Cohen.

Interestingly, both CIA and Skull and Bones are called "brotherhoods". Both apparently control those inside by compromising them. Both exhibit all the characteristics of kooky cults. In all, the individual is subordinated to the group. The Faustian term for this is "selling your soul". There are more prosaic descriptions but none as accurate. Both "Skull and Bones" and its ally, the CIA, are evil cults. [See: Ronald Reagan is Still Dead!, and The Role of the Psychopath in the Generation of Global Evil]

The Good Shepherd is an Academy Award-nominated 2006 film directed by Robert De Niro and stars Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie. The main story lines are credible and set against historical events. If it is not literally "the untold story of the birth of counter-intelligence in the Central Intelligence Agency", it is most certainly true in terms of the relationship of Skull and Bones to the CIA and in terms of the evil, pernicious effects both have had on the US, indeed, the world!

The film is most powerful when it traces the common origins of the CIA and the Skull and Bones and compares the dark results of both. I defy any rational person not a part of either cult to watch this movie and resist the conclusion that both the CIA and the Skull and Bones are evil organizations, cults in fact, that have harmed this nation, the people, the rule of law, and civilization itself. Down with both!

The following is a video playlist beginning with a trailer for the film "The Good Shephard", followed by two clips from a well-sourced documentary series exposing the Skull and Bones cult, and, at last, "We Do", the Simpsons brilliant lampoon at every cult from Bilderberg, Tri-Lateral Commission, to Skull and Bones:

An addendum: writer Alexandra Robbins recalls her 'encounter' with a bonesman.

"Who controls the British crown?"

"Who keeps the metric system down? "

"We do! We do. . . "

" Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? We do! We do. "

Certainly, Skull and Bones does cross boundaries in order to attempt to stay out of the public spotlight. When I wrote an article about the society for the Atlantic Monthly in May 2000, an older Bonesman said to me, “If it’s not portrayed positively, I’m sending a couple of my friends after you.” After the article was published, I received a telephone call at my office from a fellow journalist, who is a member of Skull and Bones.

He scolded me for writing the article—”writing that article was not an ethical or honorable way to make a decent living in journalism,” he condescended —and then asked me how much I had been paid for the story. When I refused to answer, he hung up. Fifteen minutes later, he called back.

“I have just gotten off the phone with our people.” “Your people?” I snickered.
“Yes. Our people.” He told me that the society demanded to know where I got my information.

“I’ve never been in the tomb and I did nothing illegal in the process of reporting this article,” I replied.

“Then you must have gotten something from one of us. Tell me whom you spoke to. We just want to talk to them,” he wheedled. “I don’t reveal my sources.”
Then he got angry. He screamed at me for a while about how dishonorable I was for writing the article.

“A lot of people are very despondent over this!” he yelled. “Fifteen Yale juniors are very, very upset!” I thanked him for telling me his concerns.
“There are a lot of us at newspapers and at political journalism institutions,” he coldly hissed. “Good luck with your career”—and he slammed down the phone.

--Alexandra Robbins, Secrets of the Tomb

Timely updates: Just recently, Northcom, announced on their web site its readiness to implement martial law in the US.

USNORTHCOM’s official response to Commission on National Guard and Reserves Final Report

February 1, 2008

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. -- U.S. Northern Command’s primary mission is Homeland Defense, and the command stands ready to respond to any homeland defense or civil support mission requirement.

“The U.S. military absolutely has the capacity to respond to potential threats within our nation today. It will get better in this coming year and continue to improve beyond that,” said Gen. Gene Renuart, USNORTHCOM commander.

Established in 2002 as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, USNORTHCOM has dramatically expanded DoD’s focus on all aspects of Homeland Defense, including planning and exercising, as well as organizing new headquarters and units that are specifically tailored for domestic response.

...

---USNORTHCOM’s official response to Commission on National Guard and Reserves Final Report

Hannity’s Afternoon Meltdown

Boy, oh boy. Something is happening with the ‘true’ conservatives on AM Talk Radio. I tuned into Hannity see what had happened today and the guy just went off on what can only be described as a lick-spittle tirade! Apparently Rich Galen wrote a piece today and noted how conservatives tearing down McCain is basically doing the liberal media’s work for them. It is a fair if slightly exaggerated point to make, especially after years of the right tearing down El Presidente Jorge Bush for disagreeing with them.

But something inside Hannity snapped over this and he was in the throws of insanity. He claimed those who question his actions are pompous, arrogant, hanger-ons who are simply trying to angle for jobs in the new administration and have sold their principles for money. And he was just getting started! The most hilarious (and pathetic) part came where he declared himself and other angry and raving talk show hosts the future of America! You could almost see him stand up and salute himself.

Clearly Hannity and his sharp-tongued friends are not as able to take criticism as they are at dishing it out (with insults and demeaning undertones). Geez, it was just one man’s view of the coalition self-destructing. I think what was most bizarre was how he kept trying to claim he was upbeat and things were great through out his tirade (Dude, there was so much anger and hurt I don’t know who you think you are kidding?). He also started the whole thing by claiming he got all these media calls today - as if to prove to himself he is still relevant. He then went on to say he had the power of the airwaves and people in DC better be careful or he would close their access. The threats were really something else and went on for quite a while. ...

Additional resources

• By way of Crooks and Liars: How George torpedoed Jeb's presidential hopes and sank the family's political dynasty.
• New CIA Protocol to Legalize Torture
• Philip Roth: 'Bush Is Too Horrendous To Be Forgotten'
• Bush believes he is above the law
• Who Controls the CIA Controls the Media
• MSNBC/Today Show:‘Secrets of the Tomb’

GOP, Bush, Government Incompetence, CIA

Life Under 'Big Bro'

In March 2006, my article Bush's New PR Offensive: Old Lies Die Hard! was visited by Bush's State Department. [ISP 169.252.4.# (U.S. Department of State) ] I say "Bush's State Department" rather than the "US Department of State" because the letters "US" imply, indirectly the people's ownership of the apparatus of government. Under Bush that is no longer true. And under either Colin Powell or Condo Rice the "State Department" no longer belongs to the people of "...these United States". Now --I am quite sure that other bloggers are visited routinely by Big Brother and there is no reason to suppose that my anti-Bush stance has not been visited on numerous other occasions via proxy servers. I have stopped counting the really suspicious visits, from obvious proxy servers. The really malevolent spying --that done by CIA or NSA --I will most certainly never know about.

Little has changed since I wrote this almost two years ago. Therefore, since Bush is still in office, still flouting the rule of law, still subverting American values, still a threat to world peace with the world's largest stockpile of WMD at his disposal, sill a terrorist in fact, still a war criminal, still a liar, still a failed and sorry excuse for a "President", and for having made my opinion known by at least one "state" visitor, here is the offending article in its entirety.

---

Bush has thrown down the gauntlet yet again! And congress continues to let him get away with it. Once again, the "rule of law" takes a beating. Bush repeats a fairy tale about Iraq and cites it as justification for thumbing his nose at the Constitution, circular, delusional thinking.

The reality in Iraq is a stark contrast to Bush's PR version. Numerous writers in Iraq describe a "...a country convulsed by fear" where sectarian killings are commonplace; the scale of violence is largely unseen. In a nation —still largely without lights or running water —civilians flee old neighborhoods desperately seeking safer ground —IF it can be found. Death squads roam the streets. Bush never talks about this.

And even as Bush has created chaos and civil war in Iraq, he cites Iraq as justification for his crackdown on civil liberties and the rule of law at home. That, in and of itself, should be grounds enough for impeachment and removal from office immediately.

Socrates said that the good was good not because the gods approved it but that the gods approved because it was good. Bush and his party have reversed the logic of Socrates. The GOP reverses thought processes, thinking backward to make legal crimes already committed, rationalizing bad decisions after the harm has already been done. Fast forward to G. W. Bush, who, like Richard Nixon before him, has said that if the President does it it's legal. If Socrates were alive, he would say that both Nixon and Bush had it backward. Socrates is right; the GOP is dead wrong.

Backward thinking is not uncommon in the ranks of the GOP but it seems to have reached epidemic levels with the ascension of George W. Bush. Before the Supreme Court handed down Bush v Gore, the most infamous 5 to 4 decision in its history, Antonin Scalia had already given the game away. Continuing the recount, he said, would be harmful to Bush.

On still another occasion, Scalia said:

Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

—Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court Justice

Scalia assumes that Bush had already more votes than Gore but, of course, we know now that such was not the case. Scalia's conclusive was, therefore, entirely partisan. His mind had been made up going in. Had the court simply ordered that the recount continue, as it should have, Gore would surely have won the White House. Take Scalia to his logical conclusion and the actual counting of votes need never be done again. Counting votes is sure to be harmful to someone. Last time I checked, the candidate getting the fewer number of votes was supposed to lose.

Ironically, it was Scalia who had said that it was not the court's job to hand down decisions applicable only in single cases; it was, rather, the job of the court to make precedent, establish case law. But, guiltily, the Bush v Gore court added a hasty, guilty proviso limiting Bush v Gore to one case and one case only. This would seem to be, in itself, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment cited so fallaciously and disingenuously by the five vote ideological majority.

And lately Bush crows about "Inherent" powers" and "implicit" authorization! It makes one long for the good old days when President Bush pledged his allegiance to a philosophy of "strict" construction. I've never seen anything in the Constitution about "inherent" or "implicit" powers and, if the GOP had not been disingenuous about "strict constructionism", they would have to admit that they haven't either.

President Truman claimed to have "implicit" or "inherent powers" to seize U.S. steel mills during the Korean War. But, in a landmark decision, Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court rejected Truman's argument, ruling that his seizure was unconstitutional.

When the United States signs agreements like the Geneva Conventions, they become the law of the land. Congress is therefore allowing Bush to circumvent the law with his unilateral re-invention of both law and language. Bush has invented new descriptions of "enemies", and he has arrogated unto himself the power to define what he unilaterally chooses to call "enemy combatants". He assumes the power to hold this "class" of his invention incommunicado indefinitely —even if they are American citizens. Though the Supreme Court has said that this is outside the law, Bush would have you believe that he is above the law. If Bush is correct, SCOTUS is moot. Have the justices on the court been given two weeks notice and pension?

If Bush is allowed to interpret the laws, then the independent judiciary is no longer required. Bush has denied authorizing the torture of captives, but when Congress proposed to outlaw the practice, he threatened to veto their efforts. That would seem to be, in itself, evidence that he had ordered torture knowing that it was a violation of the law. Then Bush compounded his crime; when a ban was passed with a veto-proof majority, Bush signed the measure but added a memo that said, in effect, that if he felt the need, he would not obey it, "it" being the law.

It is not Bush's job to decide which laws he will enforce and which laws he will not. I don't give a damn about how Bush "feels" about the law. If he wants to talk about his feelings, let him join a support group! "His "memo" is a challenge to the separation of powers and more evidence that the quote attributed to Bush is accurate.

The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!

—George W. Bush, as quoted in Capitol Hill Blue

On yet another related issue, Bush has acted in a manner consistent with the quote that is attributed to him. For example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act states —without ambiguity —that domestic phone surveillance could not be conducted without a warrant. A special court [FISA] was set up by Congress so that Presidents could obtain court approvals in a timely manner. Bush, however, chose to ignore and violate the law setting up the FISA court.

It was not only Democrats who were alarmed:

We have not just allegations, but proud admissions by the Republican Administration of George W. Bush that it has been conducting surreptitious electronic surveillance of American citizens, without court approval, in obvious contravention of an explicit federal law to the contrary.

—Bob Barr

Meanwhile, Bush continues to thumb his nose at Congress, wiretapping, bugging and spying on American citizens and boasting about it —though he is violating the law daily! NOTHING said by Bush has in any way refuted the law or rescinded it.

Where is the Congress when the President of the United States thumbs his nose at the rule of law, the Constitution, and the separation of powers? Everything done by Bush over the last several months has supported the charge that Bush exploits terrorism in order to maintain the U.S. presence in Iraq —in itself an ongoing war crime. [See:325 000 names on terror list ]

Bush's subversion of our laws erodes Democracy and the rule of law. Our Chief Executive has become an outlaw, and, in the process, we have ceased to be a Democratic Republic.

Gore Vidal on the Origins of the Cold War

Additional resources

• NY Times: ‘The Big Con’, America Has Been Hijacked by Right Wing Extremists
• The CIA's Pain Project
• Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
• Committee Against Toture
• Human Rights Committee
• Can Radical Capitalism Survive the Disasters It Creates?

Discoveries

• Goodbye Joe, Adieu... R.I.P.
• Operation Gladio - Behind False Flag Terrorism & 9/11

The Cowboy's Shared News Items

The Existentialist Cowboy

Imperialism
Conservative Lies
War Crimes
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Iraq

Spread the word: