Friday, April 25, 2008

The Man Who Stuck Us With Bush

If historians are honest, history will record that it was Antonin Scalia who finished off the American republic by sticking us with George W. Bush, a ne'er do well who aspired to dictatorship and with Scalia's help, got one! Scalia now sweats his legacy in an unseemly manner in public. Historians will say of his bone headed efforts to bully other justices into complicity was not not based in anyway on the Constitution, law or precedent. Scalia is what happens when justices give up law for partisan politics. Scalia's scholarly retort: 'get over it'.

Lately, Scalia has blamed Gore for Bush v Gore, ignoring the fact that Gore had already won his case in the Florida Court. A recount of all the votes was, in fact, underway but stopped when Bush made of a local election a federal case. The case is styled Bush v Gore. That means Bush brought the case.

The best damning criticism of Bush v Gore is found in Bush v Gore --the opinions of the dissenting judges. Clearly --they state even better than other legal scholars the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Supreme Court overturning a decision of a State court with regard to the state court's own rulings, a state's own elections!!! Scalia is trying to rewrite history. Not surprising for an idiot, a crook, a Republican.
The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.


It hardly needs stating that Congress, pursuant to 3 U. S. C. §5, did not impose any affirmative duties upon the States that their governmental branches could "violate." Rather, §5 provides a safe harbor for States to select electors in contested elections "by judicial or other methods" established by laws prior to the election day. Section 5, like Article II, assumes the involvement of the state judiciary in interpreting state election laws and resolving election disputes under those laws. Neither §5 nor Article II grants federal judges any special authority to substitute their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of state law.


One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

--Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting, Bush v Gore
The Florida State Court had already ruled that the recount could continue. The case had been settled where cases involving a state's right to conduct its own elections should have been settled and that is with a decision of Florida's high court.
The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ___ (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida's attempt to recount all undervote ballots


There are three issues: whether the State Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute providing for a contest of the state election results somehow violates 3 U. S. C. §5; whether that court's construction of the state statutory provisions governing contests impermissibly changes a state law from what the State's legislature has provided, in violation of Article II, §1, cl. 2, of the national Constitution; and whether the manner of interpreting markings on disputed ballots failing to cause machines to register votes for President (the undervote ballots) violates the equal protection or due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these issues is difficult to describe or to resolve.


In sum, the interpretations by the Florida court raise no substantial question under Article II. That court engaged in permissible construction in determining that Gore had instituted a contest authorized by the state statute, and it proceeded to direct the trial judge to deal with that contest in the exercise of the discretionary powers generously conferred by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000), to "fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances." As Justice Ginsburg has persuasively explained in her own dissenting opinion, our customary respect for state interpretations of state law counsels against rejection of the Florida court's determinations in this case.

But as Justice Breyer has pointed out, no showing has been made of legal overvotes uncounted, and counsel for Gore made an uncontradicted representation to the Court that the statewide total of undervotes is about 60,000. Id., at 62. To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now.

--Justice Souter, with whom Justice Breyer joins and with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join with regard to all but Part C, dissenting, Bush v Gore
Justice Ginsburg:
I might join The Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court's interpretation of its own State's law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the members of Florida's high court have done less than "their mortal best to discharge their oath of office," Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539, 549 (1981), and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law.


As Justice Breyer convincingly explains, see post, at 5-9 (dissenting opinion), this case involves nothing close to the kind of recalcitrance by a state high court that warrants extraordinary action by this Court. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that counting every legal vote was the overriding concern of the Florida Legislature when it enacted the State's Election Code. The court surely should not be bracketed with state high courts of the Jim Crow South.


I agree with Justice Stevens that petitioners have not presented a substantial equal protection claim. Ideally, perfection would be the appropriate standard for judging the recount. But we live in an imperfect world, one in which thousands of votes have not been counted. I cannot agree that the recount adopted by the Florida court, flawed as it may be, would yield a result any less fair or precise than the certification that preceded that recount.


But no one has doubted the good faith and diligence with which Florida election officials, attorneys for all sides of this controversy, and the courts of law have performed their duties. Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent.

--Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens joins, and with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join as to Part I, dissenting, Bush v Gore
From Justice Breyer:
By halting the manual recount, and thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes will not be counted under any standard, this Court crafts a remedy out of proportion to the asserted harm.


The Florida Supreme Court, applying this definition, decided, on the basis of the record, that respondents had shown that the ballots undercounted by the voting machines contained enough "legal votes" to place "the results" of the election "in doubt." Since only a few hundred votes separated the candidates, and since the "undercounted" ballots numbered tens of thousands, it is difficult to see how anyone could find this conclusion unreasonable-however strict the standard used to measure the voter's "clear intent." Nor did this conclusion "strip" canvassing boards of their discretion. The boards retain their traditional discretionary authority during the protest period. And during the contest period, as the court stated, "the Canvassing Board's actions [during the protest period] may constitute evidence that a ballot does or does not qualify as a legal vote." Id., at *13. Whether a local county canvassing board's discretionary judgment during the protest period not to conduct a manual recount will be set aside during a contest period depends upon whether a candidate provides additional evidence that the rejected votes contain enough "legal votes" to place the outcome of the race in doubt. To limit the local canvassing board's discretion in this way is not to eliminate that discretion. At the least, one could reasonably so believe. ...

I repeat, where is the "impermissible" distortion?

--Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join except as to Part I-A-1, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part I, dissenting, Bush v Gore
Certainly, the 'majority' decision did not even address the issues that compelled the case. Justice Breyer pointed out: there was absolutely no justification for the majority's remedy, which simply reversed a decision of the lower court and had the effect of halting the recount entirely. Some remedy!
By halting the manual recount, and thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes will not be counted under any standard, this Court crafts a remedy out of proportion to the asserted harm. And that remedy harms the very fairness interests the Court is attempting to protect.

I repeat, where is the "impermissible" distortion?

--Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join except as to Part I-A-1, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part I, dissenting, Bush v Gore
It is on this point that I have a nit to pick with Breyer who states that the 'remedy' was 'out of proportion' to the 'asserted harm'. It was, in fact, no remedy at all, not even addressing 14th issues --real, imagined, or strictly political. Stopping the recount entirely most certainly did not bring Florida into compliance with the 14th amendment even if it had not been prior. If anyone should think it does, I defy them to make the case. If any voter had been disenfranchised before Bush v Gore, they remain disenfranchised afterward. Additionally, a 'remedy' must be applicable universally, correcting wrongs wherever they occur throughout the nation. Bush v Gore, rather, applied in one case and in one case alone. It is, therefore, not a law but a decree.

Moreover, it was never proven by Bush v Gore that any voter had been disenfranchised except by practices associated with the Bush camp. Certainly, none of those instances or issues were addressed by Bush in his petition or by the decision of the high court.
First, normally in equal protection cases, the aggrieved party — in this case, the Florida voter who claims his or her vote was not counted equally — brings the action. That was not the case in Bush v. Gore, which raises the question whether Bush had standing (that is, the legal right) to sue.

Second, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the equal protection clause can only be successfully invoked if the discrimination was intentional, and in this case, an excellent case can be made that it was not. Any differences from county to county as to how intent was assessed probably were not intended to discriminate among various voters, though they may have had that effect.

Third, if the five justices were truly concerned about the voters' equal protection rights, then how could they adopt a solution that meant that those who submitted "undervotes" would not have their votes counted at all? Certainly eliminating certain voters' ballots, and not those of others, is the greatest voting inequality of all.

--Findlaw, A Review Of the Betrayal Of America
At last, it was not proven in Bush v Gore that Florida had not been in compliance. The majority opinion seems almost to concede that they had utterly failed to make 14th Amendment case law. It was, in fact, a decision that made no law! A single word sums up Bush v Gore: disingenuous!

Scalia's attempt to rewrite history is doomed to fail. It was Bush who brought the case ---not Gore. Had Gore brought the case it would have been styled "Gore v Bush". It was not. One is tempted to call Scalia a liar. But I am content to let the facts and history speak for themselves. And he knows what he is.

Secondly, Gore had no interest in pursuing the case as the Florida court had already mandated the only 'remedy' compelled by both law and common sense: count the votes! That process --underway --was halted by the high court which took the case upon a transparent pretext.

It was the partisan majority that set aside it's Constitutional responsibility to rule upon the law and only the law and ruled, instead, along partisan lines. That their decision to do so was foolhardy and ill-considered has been proven by the record of utter failure and catastrophe wrought upon this nation in the wake of this ill-considered, foolhardy, disingenuous 'decision'.

A high price continues to be paid because SCOTUS stuck its nose into an issue that had already been settled according to the law. The high court set the nation upon a path in which the rule of law no longer exists. A pox on the five majority justices who gave us the dictatorship of George W. Bush. They have, thus, ensured that their names and the decision to which their names are attached will forever live in infamy.

Scalia: "Get over it!"

Additional resources

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Imminent Arrest of Americans for War Crimes?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The 'net' is abuzz with talk of the imminent arrest of Americans for war crimes, specifically the tortures that were most certainly ordered by Bush and anticipated by then House Speaker Tom Delay who sponsored legislation to exempt the 'President' from war crimes prosecution. Since that time, Bush 'lawyers' have rewritten US Codes prescribing the death penalty for specific violations of the Geneva Conventions. Only the oblivious would not ask: was Bush planning 911, Afghanistan, Iraq even before he sought the office?

When he learned of Bush plans to commit war crimes including torture, former Atty Gen John Ashcroft said: 'history will not judge this kindly'. History may conclude that John Ashcroft was, in the final analysis, complicit with the Bush/Yoo conspiracy to make 'legal' numerous crimes against humanity that Bush had intended to commit in our name. There was, indeed, precedent but not the kind sought by Bush. It was Reinhard Heydrich who convened senior Nazi brass at Wannsee. Their mission: cook up a rationale, some legalistic mumbo jumbo, that will make mass murder and genocide legal!

Politico wrote the following as if it were current news.
Suddenly, something happens overseas that throws the presidential campaigns off the TV screens entirely: Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on vacation in Italy, is arrested and brought to The Hague to face war crimes charges.

--Politico, Could war crimes charges be October surprise?
Politico is not alone in thinking it just a matter of time until an American is arrested, charged, and, with any luck and justice, brought to trial. It is a measure of how Bush and by extension America is distrusted that almost every knowledgeable writer expects another terrorist attack on US soil. Politico refers to Bush as "on his way out". Yet --another attack will give Bush the cover he needs to cancel elections and, in effect, complete a fascist coup d'etat!

A war crimes trial of any American should be a wake up call for Americans. Former Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. Paul X. Kelley reminded in the Washington Post: “
Violations of Common Article 3 are ‘war crimes’ for which everyone involved — potentially up to and including the president of the United States — may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.”
I was not surprised by recent reports citing a declassified memo authored by JD lawyer/talk show pundit John Yoo. It bluntly favored sweeping, perhaps unlimited, presidential authority to order torture. A fuzzy cheeked idiot in my Congressman's office had made the same argument to me with regard to a bill sponsored by Tom DeLay. The House Bill authorized Bush to carry out various war crimes and exonerated him in advance for numerous offenses which he clearly had intended to commit. I object to this utter disregard for America's international obligations under international law. My Congressman's aid said that the treaties meant nothing! In other words, I replied, America's word means nothing so long as Bush occupies the White House! My opinion of the Bush regime has been confirmed daily since that time.

The Bush administration planned to commit war crimes from the outset of the administration, perhaps even earlier. Long before 911, Bush prepared legislation that would exempt US troops from war crimes prosecution at the Hague, specifically, violations of the Geneva Conventions later violated at Abu Ghraib. The measure positioned Bush in advance to exploit the crime of 911, though it had not yet happened. To this end, Bush sought Congressional authorization to go to war with the Netherlands should US troops find themselves on trial for war crimes at the Hague!

The measure exempting US troops from 'war crimes' was introduced by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) as an amendment to H.R. 1646, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001, on May 8, 2001. It passed the House 282-137 on May 10 and introduced as S. 857 in the Senate on May 9 by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Zell Miller (D-GA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Warner (R-VA), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Frank Murkowski (R-AK) --the usual suspects!

The bill authorized Bush " use all means (including the provision of legal assistance) necessary to bring about the release of covered US persons and covered allied persons held captive by or on behalf of the Court [International Criminal Court, ICC, in the Hague]. Some highlights:

  • The President is authorized to invade The Hague. Specifically, the bill empowers Bush to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of US or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court.
  • No US governmental entity --including State or local governments and court of any US jurisdiction --may cooperate with the ICC in arrests, extraditions, searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, or similar matters.
  • No ICC agent may conduct any investigation in the US.
  • No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries Party to the Rome Statute.
  • These provisions are in addition to existing US law (the 2000-2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Act) which prohibits any US funds going to the ICC once it has been established unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to the Rome Treaty.

This measure was introduced before 911 in anticipation of a 'War on Terrorism' that only those with guilty foreknowledge could have anticipated, a 'war' that would include US aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly no one but Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, the Project for the New American Century and high level members of the Bush administration could have anticipated the improbable series of events leading to the American quagmire in Iraq. Certainly, they are not 'psychic' despite a mantra repeated ad nauseam post 911: "No one could have foreseen...."! In fact, only the Bush administration 'foresaw' 911 in such detail, that they planned in advance to make legal the very laws they have in fact violated in the post-911 world. What incredible coincidences!

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.

It is evidence that the Bush administration was far better equipped and prepared to supervise the events of 911 from inside Dick Cheney's bunker than was the rag tag, improbable and outlandish 'conspiracy' of 19 Arab hijackers --none of whom could fly a 757! Because Bush had planned in advance, his administration moved forward with plans to attack Afghanistan months before 911 as negotiations with the Taliban broke down. As for Iraq, Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force had already carved up Iraq oil booty among the robber barons of big oil: Halliburton, Enron, et al! Bush and Cheney conspired to commit the grand theft of a nations oil and, in the process, mass murder.

Bush would soon have his first chance to exploit what the Project for the New American Century [See: PDF: Rebuilding America's Defenses] would call a 'catalyzing event' like Pearl Harbor.
Courts in Italy and Germany already have issued warrants demanding the arrest of CIA operatives for illegally kidnapping and allegedly torturing citizens and residents of their nations. More than 30 US citizens have been named, their CIA covers blown. These warrants have not been executed, primarily for diplomatic reasons. But they could be acted upon rapidly with a simple decision by either government. And other names — of those directly involved in “enhanced interrogation techniques” [bloody torture] — are starting to emerge overseas.

--Politico, Could war crimes charges be October surprise?
Under the precedent of the Nuremberg trials, even making such an argument exposes Yoo, along with others — including federal Judge Jay S. Bybee, a former Bush administration Justice Department official, or former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — to war crimes indictments.

How Bush Created a Dictatorship and Places Himself Above the Law

I encourage the International Courts to indict George W. Bush himself for having ordered a campaign of capital crimes i.e, wars of naked aggression in which millions are now dead as a result. If that's not a crime in this world, then nothing is. If the ICC will proceed, I will happily assist them in the preparation of its case.




Under REX, the president could declare a state of emergency, empowering the head of FEMA to take control of the internal infrastructure of the United States and suspend the Constitution. The president could invoke Executive Orders 11000 through 11004 which would:

1) Draft all citizens into work forces under government supervision;

2) Empower the Postmaster to register all men, women, and children;

3) Seize all airports and aircraft;

4) Seize all housing and establish forced relocation of citizens.

FEMA, with a black budget allegedly provided by the Department of Defense, has worked closely with the Pentagon in an effort to avoid the legal restrictions of Posse Comitatus. While FEMA may not have been directly responsible for these precedent-setting cases, the principle of federal control was seen during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 with the federalization of the National Guard and during the siege at Waco, where Army tanks were involved in the final conflagration.


The deputy attorney general of California commented at a conference that anyone who attacks the state, even verbally, becomes a revolutionary and an enemy by definition. Louis Guiffreda, who was head of FEMA, stated that “legitimate violence is integral to our form of government, for it is from this source that we can continue to purge our weaknesses.”

It is significant to note that the dictionary definition of terrorism—“the calculated use of violence”—corresponds precisely to the government’s stated policy of “the use of legitimate violence”.

Hold on, a reasonable person who can read might ask: Who are the real terrorists? Guiffreda’s remark provides a revealing insight into the thinking of those who have been charged with oversight of the welfare of the citizens in this country. Apparently, if one’s convictions or philosophy do not correspond with the government’s agenda, that individual may find himself on a government enemy list, thereby making him/her a “target” to be “purged” by the use of “legitimate violence”.

[End quoting]

So now we see more clearly the agenda behind the government’s double-speak language and its flexibility to trap we-the-people should we become too uppity about their taking away of our basic constitutional rights. But things only get more bizarre as we probe deeper into the FEMA machinery.

The following article was obtained from the Internet website and is written by Jon Elliston, Dossier Editor:


Reactions to this blog entry:

Imminent Arrest Of Americans For War Crimes?


It saddens me that we have let our once beloved America, slip into the hands of evil horrible men. But what makes me even sadder is that most people just don't even care about it, There still happy waving there flags. Riding around in there car talking about who won "Dance with the stars" last
night, and "Oh did you see her spin, it was amazing". . . They go about there daily lives, as if the world around them isn't getting bleaker and bleaker by the day. . . But hey thats ok, a swig of Whiskey and a couple porzac, make all the pain go awa.



reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 10:40 AM by DimensionalDetective

reply to post by Hakii

Indeed...And it goes MUCH further than being lied to...These people have all but declared war on the populace with procedures they've put into place...They are striving for uncontested power and rule over EVERYONE, with no chance at being stopped in doing so. It is something straight out of an Orwell novel. People better wake the hell up quickly, and start furiously writing their congressmen...But even that, I'm afraid, may not do much...As we see, these criminals have insulated themselves from even INTERNATIONAL laws, and they have threatened anyone who tries to bring them to justice with extreme prejudice. It is enough to make me sick to my stomach.

Very, very disturbing...

reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 12:22 PM by RabbitChaser

A very disturbing read thru here, indeed. As I've noted for awhile, I really don't think these guys will give up TWH. And only more recently did I note I think we've actually been under the dictatorship that Bush has spoken so fondly of on several occassions... self-admittedly and in a
recent interview (can't pull it now) with a foreign journalist, as long as he's the dictator. Well, folks... that's the way it's been this entire presidency... almost almost 7 full years since the date noted in 1st excerpt.

I give up. I'm done playing by the rules if those in power don't have to either...

Monday, April 21, 2008

Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VI, The government places itself above the law

By Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush's ascent to dictatorship began with a violent attack upon vote recounters in Florida. It was given an imprimatur of legitimacy with the disingenuous 5-4 decision of a conservative SCOTUS. A felonious, physical attack had the effect of stopping the court ordered recount of votes, a count that would have given the White House to Al Gore. Those events and the consolidation of near absolute power since are simply the most visible characteristics of a stunning coup d'etat consolidated quickly in the aftermath of what many believe to have been a false flag attack upon the US: 911!

Since these events, the Bush path to a totalitarian dictatorship has been by the Nazi playbook and Herr Goebbels guidebook to Nazi propaganda. The Bush rise to power is nothing new. No one ever accused Nazis of being imaginative or innovative. The following is just another variation on a theme that Herr Hitler would have recognized.
  • A Stolen Election
  • A False-Flag Attack
  • A War Begun Upon a Pack of Lies
  • Rule by Decree
  • Suspension of Habeas Corpus
  • The Unitary Executive
  • Bush Becomes the 'State'
Our nation is now left with a stark choice: either force from office an illegitimate usurper or forever lose the Democratic Republic. By arrogating unto himself the powers of an absolute dictator, Bush has simply made it impossible to unseat him peaceably and, as Nancy Pelosi infamously declared: impeachment is off the table! Few, if any, peaceful options remain. If power can be seized in a coup d'etat, perhaps, it will be taken back as well.
But if a coup does not use warfare or a mass uprising to seize control, then where does it get the power to do so? "The short answer," Luttwak says, "is that the power will come from the state itself... A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." 5

Normally, a coup does not seek to destroy the basic structure of the existing government, which is more typical of a revolution or a war for liberation. Instead, Luttwak explains, those undertaking a true coup d'etat "want to seize power within the present system, and [they] shall only stay in power if [they] embody some new status quo supported by those very forces which a revolution may seek to destroy." 6 (Emphasis in original.)

In other words, the coup takes advantage of the governmental structure itself, as well as the bureaucratic nature of modern governments. There is an established hierarchy, an accepted chain of command, and standard procedures that are followed when instructions come down this pipeline. So long as the instructions come from the appropriate source or level of authority, they will almost always be followed even if from a new, and illegitimate, holder of that authority.

Luttwak explains that a coup "operates by taking advantage of this machine-like behavior: during the coup because it uses parts of the state apparatus to seize the controlling levers; afterwards because the value of the 'levers' depends on the fact that the state is a machine." 7

Thus, by gaining control over a few carefully selected pivotal points of power within the government bureaucracy, the plotters of the coup can effectively gain control over the entire "machine" of state.

During the presidential election, the key pivot points proved to be quite limited in number, not to mention patently obvious. The first was the state government of Florida, the second the US Supreme Court. But of course, every puppet needs a puppeteer.

--John Dees, Coup 2K
Dees was among the pioneer "whistle-blowers" of the election debacle in Florida which was followed by the infamous Bush v Gore
The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.

--Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting, Bush v Gore
Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and had not Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy and O'Connor intervened, the nation would have been spared the tragic ascension of GWB to the White House. The justices acted just in time to prevent our really knowing the truth when it really counted, that is, who really should have gotten that state's Electoral votes. Antonin Scalia had said that continuing a recount of all the votes would be harmful to Bush.
Counting the votes would threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to the legitimacy of his election. 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
First of all --it was not the 'legality' of the election but the conduct of GOP partisans and brownshirts who cast doubt upon the process itself. Secondly, the candidate who gets the fewer number of votes is supposed to lose! Scalia forever stained the high court, disgraced his office and became a political tool. His tortured logic enabled a felonious coup d'etat. Americans are still paying the price.

Thus --Bush's coup d'etat was hardly a velvet revolution. It was, rather, a violent overthrow of legitimate government in which Bush 'brownshirts', paid thugs, and white coller criminals, were organized, paid, and trucked to Florida for the purpose of shutting down a legally mandated recount of all the votes.
In Florida, the Bush campaign quietly organized "rent-a-rioters" and flew them to Florida from all over the country. While disingenuously portraying the protests as "spontaneous grass-roots efforts," the Bush campaign sent special squads of GOP Congressional staffers who, in several instances, led violent attacks on Democratic observers, smashed windows, and tried to force their way into vote-counting rooms. This was not civil disobedience intended to show disagreement, but a concerted attack designed to threaten and intimidate. 38

Shortly after the election, the Bush campaign began a two-pronged program to import as many protesters into Florida as they could. The first prong was done openly: phone-trees reached out across the country to coax party loyalists to head down and fight Al Gore's "theft" of the election. This much is standard political fare. What was unusual was the more discreet second prong.
Under the direction of House Republican Whip Tom DeLay (of Texas, mind you), staff members of GOP Congressmen were quietly approached with offers of all-expenses-paid trips to Florida, "all paid for by the Bush campaign." 39 In addition to staying in swanky beach-side hotels, part of their reward would be an exclusive Thanksgiving Day party in Ft. Lauderdale.

According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 200 Congressional staffers signed on, with many of them staying in Florida for over a week. "Once word leaked out," said one GOP operative, "everybody wanted in." 40

Of course, the law prohibits Congressional staffers from participating in partisan political activities on "company" time. However, the rules allow them to "go on vacation" or declare themselves on "temporary leave" at a moment's notice. Their marching orders came from their bosses, but officially they were simply "private citizens" (albeit on the Bush campaign's tab).

Once on the scene, high-level coordination was done as secretly as possible. The Wall Street Journal described the "air of mystery to the operation," noting that daily instructions were issued in the form anonymous memos slipped under hotel-room doors late at night. One aide told the paper, "To tell the truth, nobody knows who is calling the shots." 41

On the streets, operations were coordinated from a motor home decorated with Bush-Cheney campaign shwag, like many others parked nearby. The mobile command center was kept a block or so away from the center of the protests, far enough to lay low but close enough for instant access. The protesters were brought to the scene in specially rented busses. Party operatives used bullhorns to shout inflammatory rhetoric, passed out t-shirts and leaflets, and generally kept things heated.

The first GOP riot occurred in Miami on November 22. 42 In command were some 75 members of the "Congress Gang," who floated in and out of the mobile home a block away where the votes were being counted.

NY Rep. John Sweeney, who was observing the recount, gave the order to "shut it down." 43 Within minutes, an angry mob filled the halls of the government building, screaming threats with their fists in the air. Leading the mob, clearly visible in news footage and photographs, were a number of the staffers in the "Congress Gang."
Panicked sheriff's deputies tried to close the doors leading to the counting area. The protesters responded by pounding on the doors and the large window looking in on the besieged canvassers. The glass bulged under the strain.

Joe Geller, the chairman of the local Democratic Party, decided wisdom was the better part of valor. He shoved some papers and a standard blank sample ballot into his brief case and tried to get away. Someone shouted that Geller was "stealing a ballot," and the mob leapt into hot pursuit. Once on the street, Geller was surrounded. He was beaten and kicked as he tried to shield himself with his arms. Finally, local police waded into the crowd and after a considerable struggle managed to extract Geller in one piece. 44

Back inside, other Democrats were attacked. Party spokesman Luis Rosero was shoved, punched and kicked when cornered outside the election supervisor's office. Even Congressman Peter Deutsch was "manhandled." Then word came that 1,000 Cuban-Americans were on their way to join the fray, egged on by the most influential Spanish-language radio station, Radio Mambi.

To stave off a full-fledged lynching, the canvassing board announced the counting would be re-opened to the public. Sheriff's deputies had to escort the three terrified counters back into the public recount area. Meanwhile, the local election board held a private meeting in more secure quarters. When they emerged, they announced exactly what the mob wanted: the recount would be stopped altogether, and the original results from Nov. 7 would be certified. The Miami-Dade election supervisor, David Leahy, initially admitted that the attacks had played a part in their decision to stop the count. "If what I'd envisioned worked out," he said at the time, "and there were no objections, we'd be up there now counting." 45 Later, he denied the protests had been a factor.

With their work done in Miami, the motor home and its troops moved on to Broward County, where they were joined by about 20 other Congressional staffers who were already on the scene. The promised Cuban-American activists also arrived, many of whom were members of the Cuban American National Foundation, a right-wing organization with documented ties to the CIA.

Security was much heavier in Broward, in part because of the Miami riot that had just been broadcast live on CNN. As a result, the protests there were extremely vocal and sometimes tense but, judging from the available press reports at least, no one was physically assaulted. However, the local Democratic Party Headquarters was surrounded and at one point a brick was thrown through its window.
Other "Congress Gang" platoons were sent to Fort Lauderdale, and some of the same Congressional staffers were also involved in a tense confrontation with Democratic volunteers in West Palm Beach. The group, which included Rev. Al Sharpton, was cornered while trying to retrieve some campaign signs. Things got quite tense and heated words were exchanged, but no violence erupted.
In the end, the secret GOP effort was so successful that at many demonstrations, GOP protesters outnumbered Democratic supporters 10 to one.

When it was all over, the Republican rent-a-rioters got their lavish Thanksgiving Day party, with plenty of free food and booze. Wayne Newton crooned "Danke Schoen" for the crowd, until screaming female fans stormed the stage. "Danke schoen, darling, danke schoen. Save those lies, darling, don't explain...." 46 But the real highlight of the evening was a conference call from Bush and Cheney. Instead of chastising the goon squad for their violent tactics, the candidates thanked them for their work. They even cracked mocking jokes about their rivals. 47
The judicious application of "spontaneous" protests and mob violence has always been a key feature of CIA destabilization. Such operations help put political pressure on the target, make for good TV propaganda, and are sometimes used to intentionally provoke a crackdown that is then widely publicized, often through journalists on the Agency payroll.

For example, the CIA's plan for the 1953 coup in Iran called for "stage[d] political demonstrations under religious cover," to include "staged attacks" on Muslim religious leaders which would then be falsely blamed on the Mossadegh government. 48

In their Chilean operations against Salvador Allende during the early '70s, one of the CIA's greatest propaganda victories was "The March of Empty Pots." Thousands of women marched through the streets banging empty cooking pots with ladles to protest food shortages. In reality, the shortages were artificially induced through a secret campaign of economic sabotage coordinated by the CIA along with ITT, Anaconda Copper and other multinationals. Many of the marching "housewives" were actually the spouses of wealthy anti-Allende partisans who were suffering little. Armed fascist gangs backed by the CIA marched along with the women, then provoked violent clashes with the police. Stories of police "attacking women with empty pots" flooded the world press. Dozens of other protests were organized by CIA front groups in order to artificially escalate tensions and portray Allende as having little support or control. 49
In 1990, during Bulgaria's first post-Communist elections, professional agitators, backed by millions in covert financing from the US, organized massive street protests that ultimately succeeded in unseating the duly elected government. Even though the renamed Communist party had won the overwhelming majority in voting which western observers on the scene widely agreed had been fair, the US (through the CIA) used the mobs to intimidate and ultimately hound officials from office. 50

Not coincidentally, one of the senior members of the Bush administration who coordinated the Bulgarian action was none other than James Baker – the man who spearheaded the Bush campaign's post-election response to Gore's challenges in Florida. 51

--John Dees, Coup 2K"Spontaneous" Mob Violence
In the aftermath of coup 2k Bush would opine: 'this would be a whole lot easier if this were a dictatorship!' In the aftermath of 911, Bush would issue yet another example of what passes for wit among GOP conspirators and traitors: "Lucky me, I just hit the trifecta!" In fact, his regime had begun working on an attack and invasion of Iraq eight months before 911. [See: Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq]. Dick Cheney, likewise, had already formed and convened his National Energy Policy Development Group in which the rich oil fields of the Middle East were carved up among the robber barons of big oil. [See Enron: What Cheney Knew; also: John Dean: GAO's Final Energy Task Force Report Reveals that the Vice President Made A False Statement to Congress; Task Force Map of Iraq Oil Fields]
At some point, the Bush administration anticipated the opposition to a war about which he lied: Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction nor had he ties to Bin Laden --a near mythical creation of al Qaeda, itself a creation of the American CIA. Like all incipient dictatorships, Bushco would find it expedient to use against US citizens measures it claimed would be directed only at 'terrorists'. Here's the 'gotcha': a 'terrorist' is whatever and whomever Bush says is a 'terrorist'. Again --Bush would find himself at odds with a 'goddamned piece of paper'.
The Constitution forbids the government from arresting and holding people in the United States without "due process of law." Nonetheless, Bush has claimed the power as commander in chief to designate people as "enemy combatants" and imprison them indefinitely without filing charges.

In 2002, US citizen Jose Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and held in military brigs for nearly three years. Civil libertarians said that was unconstitutional. His case had been heading toward the Supreme Court; the administration recently brought criminal charges against him, thereby thwarting a clear ruling on the issue.
In the past, Congress has ratified treaties pledging that the United States and its agents will not use torture or inhumane treatment against captives. Once ratified, treaties become part of American law, according to the Constitution.

But before this week, the White House maintained that the laws and treaties did not bind the president in handling terrorist leaders. White House lawyers wrote memos that appeared to justify the use of extreme measures - which critics called torture - in interrogating suspected terrorists.

Civil libertarians say the latest revelations add to their frustration with the Bush administration. "If we are a nation of laws, then the president must be bound by the rule of law," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel at the ACLU in Washington.

-- '78 Law Sought to Close Spy Loophole, David G. Savage, The Los Angeles Times
It was all entirely too convenient for a known liar (called 'shiftless' by Ronald Reagan) , a man who had stated that not only was the Constitution a 'goddamned piece of paper', 'this would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship!'.
Washington - In 1978, Congress thought it had closed a loophole in the law when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The loophole concerned secret spying authorized by the president on grounds of national security.

On Friday, many in Washington were surprised to learn that despite the 1978 law, President Bush and his advisors had claimed the power to authorize secret spying within the United States.

The New York Times reported that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to listen in on the phone calls of thousands of people in this country without getting permission from a court. Bush's lawyers maintained that the president had the inherent authority as commander in chief to protect national security through secret spying. The account was confirmed by the Los Angeles Times.

A President Above the Law
A government that robs you of the right to privacy can likewise arrest you in secret, deny you Due Process of Law, Habeas Corpus, the right to legal counsel, the right to make a phone call. In short, Bush has arrogated unto himself and by extension his toadies in the 'administration', the absolute powers of a police state.
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
Bush simply decreed that Habeas Corpus be suspended, though there is no rebellion nor is there an invasion and, in any case, the power to suspend Habeas Corpus, is not consigned by the Constitution to the 'President' whose only sworn duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution.

911 was not an invasion even if it had not been an inside job. But there is, in any case, no evidence to support Bush's absurd fairy tale about '19 arab hijackers' and, even if it were true, it hardly amounted to an invasion.

FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that the FBI had no evidence to link the 19 'Muslim men' who have apparently disappeared --neither on the autopsy list or the original 'official flight manifests'. In speech to the Common Wealth Club in San Francisco on April 19, 2003, Mueller stated that the purported hijackers 'left no paper trial'. "In our investigation", he said: "we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." That's because the plot to pull off 911 originated inside the White House. There is enough probable cause right now to indict Bush and Cheney on that very charge.

An event all but forgotten now, overshadowed by the calamitous war against Iraq and the economic ruin brought upon the nation by the Bush administration, had the effect of bullying Congress and the media just as Congress had stalled key portions of Bush's Patriot Act. As the the following sequence of videos from the History Channel and CBS News, the FBI has been implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

The anthrax attacks occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001. Anthrax spores in letters mailed to several news organizations and two Democratic U.S. Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, killed five people and infected 17 others. The crime --perpetrated by the government of the US on its own citizens --remains unsolved. A government that wages war upon its own citizens is guilty of high treason!

The US attack on Iraq is a war of naked aggression. US 'public safety' was never threatened in any way by Saddam Hussein, in fact, a US puppet, a Bush stooge propped up by the US until he would no longer go along with US imperialist schemes. Saddam was, in fact, lured into invading Kuwait and we have a transcript of his interview with US Ambassador April Glaspie to prove it.

The US Becomes The World's Biggest Terrorist Nation

Bush seemed to have everything going his way toward his vision of the 'Absolute State'. An ominous decision by Federal judge David Trager [March 13, 2006] said the United States can violate international laws, presumably international conventions to which the US is bound by treaty, most notably the Geneva Convention. The case involves a lawsuit filed by Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. He had been kidnapped by CIA agents during a stopover at Kennedy Airport. In his decision, Federal District Judge David Trager dismissed a lawsuit brought by Arar challenging his arrest, detention, and torture.

According to Nat Hentoff's column, Liberty Beat, Arar was flown to Syria where he was held in solitary confinement and tortured:
... in a three-by-six-foot cell ("like a grave," he said). He became, internationally, one of the best-known victims of the CIA's extraordinary renditions—the sending of suspected terrorists to countries known for torturing their prisoners.

The Torture Judge
Arar, subsequently released, has not been charged with a crime —by Syria or the United States, which refuses to cooperate with any investigation. The Canadian Parliament, however, has begun an investigation to include a public inquiry.

The implications of this case are enormous. If Judge Trager's ruling is allowed to stand, American officials will have a " light to do to others what they did to Arar." Any crime could then be committed in the name of national security.
Judge Trager's decision is a transparent circular argument, most often found in the decisions of Antonin Scalia. Trager maintains that any other ruling would have the "...the most serious consequences to our foreign relations or national security or both." In other words, Trager has not ruled upon law, but upon expediency. His primary consideration is not what is legal or what is not but rather, what is "convenient" to those agencies otherwise bound to operate within the U.S. Constitution. He has said, in effect, that even a judge must acquiesce in the commission of state crimes —for convenience! They must acquiesce not by or for law —but for convenience!

The Government Denies 'Due Process of Law' In more enlightened times, 'liberals' found some relief in an independent judiciary. But as the concept of "Separation of Powers" is given a NeoCon treatment by other activist conservative judges, there remains little refuge in the letter of the law.
...the coordinate branches of our government [executive and legislative] are those in whom the Constitution imposes responsibility for our foreign affairs and national security. Those branches have the responsibility to determine whether judicial oversight is appropriate.
The Federal Judiciary since Marbury v Madison has always determined when judicial oversight is appropriate. This decision, if left to Bush, consolidates his power grab and subverts the separation of powers. Individual American citizens are hereinafter left no due process of law, no presumption of innocence, no right to counsel. If Bush but deems you a 'terrorist', you don't get a phone call and you may not even be told the charges against you. In the vernacular: you're totally fucked!

Before a stunned nation could recover from 911, Bush moved decisively against the 'freedom' that he had claimed terrorists had 'just hated'. It was clear, however, that the victims of Bush's power grab would be law abiding, ordinary US citizens but primarily those who oppose him politicially.
Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

George W. Bush, United Nations General Assembly, September 2002
Please note: Bush was not talking about U.S. Abu Ghraib tortures. These were allegations he made against the Hussein regime. But —one wonders: what difference does it make to an Iraqi citizen if he is tortured by Saddam or by Bush? If I am an innocent civilian, what difference does it make to me whether I am summarily executed by Saddam or by Bush?

Bush asserts that wartime and "inherent powers" give him all the legal authority he needs to conduct widespread domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens at home or abroad. In the meantime, the Congress has seen fit to renew the Patriot Act which now includes a little known provision that creates a U.S. "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."'

U.S. 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.
The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!

—George W. Bush
The language of this provision, slipped into the "new and improved" Patriot Act, will allow authorities to haul demonstrators to jail on felony charges for merely breaching an arbitrary perimeter. What's really Orwellian is that this United States Secret Service Uniformed Division (SSUD) may be operational already.

Bush's weltanschauung is and has been harmful to this nation; it has been harmful to this nation's legal underpinnings; it has been harmful to the world.
One of the most interesting and harmful delusions to which men and nations can be subjected, is that of imagining themselves special instruments of the Divine Will.
—Bertrand Russell, Ideas that Have Harmed Mankind

And elsewhere in that essay, Russell wrote:
The world at the present day stands in need of two kinds of things. On the one hand, organization - political organization for the elimination of wars, economic organization to enable men to work productively, especially in the countries that have been devastated by war, educational organization to generate a sane internationalism. On the other hand it needs certain moral qualities the qualities which have been advocated by moralists for many ages, but hitherto with little success. The qualities most needed are charity and tolerance, not some form of fanatical faith such as is offered to us by the various rampant isms. I think these two aims, the organizational and the ethical, are closely interwoven; given either the other would soon follow.
As I write, Bush will most certainly assume even more powers of a dictator. See:
Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution
An excerpt:
§ 1486. Yet the clause did not wholly escape animadversion in the state conventions. The propriety of admitting the president to be commander-in-chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command.2 The answer then given was, that though the president might, there was no necessity, that he should, take the command in person; and there was no probability, that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when he was possessed
The Congressional leadership was intimidated with US Military Grade Anthrax. Congress has not been worth the space it takes up since. Had Bush been clever, smart, cunning, the loss of American Democracy might not have been tolerable but, at least, understandable. But it is still hard to believe that the powers of an 'absolute state' have come to reside in a drooling, pretzel/coke snorting cretin with an IQ barely that of a moron! It is a turn of events simply unimaginable, unforgivable and unfathomable!

No admirer of Ronald Reagan, I have nevertheless found the former President's comments with regard to Bush very interesting as characterized in the satirical My Lunch with Ronald Reagan.
‘A moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his ne’re-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.’
Satirical or no --it is an opinion that appears to be shared by the former President's son.
"My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush," says the former president's son [Ron Reagan], in a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration's efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy. "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
"It was on another occasion, at the house of Heinrich Hoffmann, his photographer friend, that I started playing some of the football marches I had picked up at Harvard. I explained to Hitler all the business about cheer leaders and marches, counter-marches and deliberate whipping up of hysterical enthusiasm. I told him about the thousands of spectators being made to roar 'Harvard, Harvard, Harvard, rah, rah, rah!' in unison and of the hypnotic effect of this sort of thing. I played him some of the Sousa marches and then my own Falarah, to show how it could be done by adapting German tunes, and gave them all that buoyant beat so characteristic of American brass-band music. I had Hitler fairly shouting with enthusiasm. "That is it, Hanfstaengl, that is what we need for the movement, marvellous," and he pranced up and down the room like a drum majorette. After that he had the S.A. band practising the same thing. I even wrote a dozen marches or so myself over the course of the years, including the one that was played by the brownshirt columns as they marched through the Brandenburger Tor on the day he took over power. Rah, rah, rah! became Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil! but that is the origin of it and I suppose I must take my share of the blame."

Hanfstaengl, Hitler: The Missing Years, p.51

Why Newt Gingrich is Dead Wrong About Our Rights, Bush, and the Constitution

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has revealed a naked would-be emperor. At Drew University in New Jersey, Gingrich defended Bush's dictatorial power grab --the Bush administration's assault on the Bill of Rights --saying that the government has a 'right to defend society'. Against whom? Patriotic Americans of some party other than 'GOP'?

Perhaps Newt has in mind "foreign terrorists" whom Bush forgot to thank for 911! Newt never cleared it up! Newt never explained where, by whom and how was America threatened in such a manner that it may be quick fixed by repealing the Bill of Rights or --worse --applying it inequitably upon whims, bad moods, lies, propaganda or --worst of all --phony terrorist attacks about which nothing said by Bush and his administration can be proven! Nothing!

Not content to leave bad enough alone, Gingrich added that when threatened, "...people will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat." Thus --Newt tipped his hand! Given his record, it is fair to conclude that that is precisely what Newt Gingrich and similar ilk have had in mind all along.

I am not surprised that Newt would get it the wrong way 'round! But it is time to straighten Newt out! The responsibilities of the government are clearly spelled out in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is quite specific about those instances in which Habeas Corpus may be suspended. A phony state of emergency and lies about WMD don't qualify!

Newt's position is typical 'backward' thinking that makes of the state an end in itself. The Constitution, however, assigns to government but one over-arching responsibility and, as Jefferson said "... 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."

Newt and his ilk pose a clear and present danger to our Democracy, the Constitution that created it, the freedoms we enjoy! The 'clear and present danger' is Newt and the GOP --not foreign terrorists! When Newt is preaching right wing sedition, one may rightly conclude that the GOP has and continues to exploit the 'clear and present danger' to our nation and its Constitution. But --as Pogo said of the enemy, we have seen the enemy and he is the GOP! When the Constitution is rescinded and/or retired it will be the work of crooks and idiots like Newt --not terrorists!

If Newt is correct, then perhaps the time has come to abolish it. The government --clearly --is not the source of our rights. Rather, 'powers' exercised by government derive from us! "We, the people" are aggrieved by the arbitrary and dictatorial manner in which the Bush administration lied about both Iraq and terrorism; we --the true sovereigns of this nation as established in the Constitution are aggrieved by Bush's deliberate failure to live up to his only Constitutional responsibility:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

--Presidential Oath of Office
Preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States was and remains Bush's only job. Bush not only failed, he has, himself, posed the greater threat! Bush has worked overtly to subvert the Constitution. Put another way: Bush put his hand on a black book and lied --under oath!

Note to Newt: that is high treason! In the 18th Century, it was sufficient cause for a hanging.

The subversion of the Constitution was effected --not by alleged 'terrorists' --but by Bush and complicit supporters like Newt Gingrich. Of Al Qaeda and Bush, Bush is the bigger threat! He’s here, on our soil, working with the likes of Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo to subvert the Constitutional principles that he claimed had been 'hated' by 'turrsts'.

The world's number one terrorist is George W. Bush.

The world's biggest terrorist organizations are the US Military and the CIA. Clearly --Bush cannot defend what Bush and Bush alone has destroyed.

It is not a matter of American's 'giving away' their liberties and freedoms. No one took a poll. Bush quickly exploited approval ratings of some 90 percent and proceded to act as if his dictatorship had been a fait accompli. Democrats rolled over and played dead. Key Democrats got "Anthrax Letters" --not exactly fan mail. Flag - waving, SUV driving would-be 'brownshirts' burned Dixie Chick CDs.

While the media was distracted, Bush and Gonzales were busy re-writing the Constitution. Sadly, I haven't heard the candidates address the issue of restoring the Bill of Rights though it should be the number one issue of this campaign. Until someone meets this issue forthrightly, everything else is beside the point.

Newt is wrong and disingenuous in his assertion that government has a 'right' to abrogate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order 'protect society'. We, the people are society and 'under the Constitution' WE are the sovereign. If the "government" will not defend our constitutional rights, then that government should be abolished. That idea is not original with me; I learned it from Thomas Jefferson.

The language so cavalierly tossed aside by the Bush junta was made the basis for the Supreme Law of the Land. It's only purpose is the protection of the people from criminal, usurpers and traitors like Bush, Ashcroft, Scalia and Gonzales!

Read Madison's Preamble to the Constitution and Joseph Story's 'Commentaries' on it.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [bolding is mine, LH]
The 'United States of America' is a creation of 'the people' for which the 'Constitution' is their voice and the sole affirmation of their sovereignty. Government as envisaged by James Madison is a caretaker of no inherent rights whatsoever. It has, rather, responsibilities to the people and only those powers necessary to enable it to fulfill those responsibilities. Of Al Qaeda and Bush, Bush is the greater threat to the lives and rights of the people and the people's Constitution.