Counter-Revolutionary Push-back

Two-hundred thirty years after the first birth pains of what would become the most thoughtfully-established government known to man, counter-revolutionary agents at the highest level of that government are at work to destroy what generations of freedom-lovers have fought for and given their lives to protect.

No more. The people have spoken and delivered an overwhelming rebuke to those who have failed to stand up to protect the Constitution.

Americans want justice. Not gulags, not the loss of habeus corpus, not secret evidence—obtained through “stress positions” and waterboarding—presented in kangaroo courts.

When Bush failed to ensure the detention or death of those who have directly attacked the USA, while ensuring that he gained for himself the ability to wiretap our phones without warrants, his true motives were revealed.

The press, many of whom were so complicit in the counter-revolutionaries’ rise to power and were quick to excuse the worst of their excesses against the Constitution, even now attempt to rationalize the indefensible, not realizing nearly too late how close we are to losing press freedoms that the founding patriots encouraged as a means to ensure an informed populace.

We are not by any means out of danger yet. Our system of government has been taken to the very brink of the abyss. The foes of our system of government wield great power and more daunting yet, have demonstrated they will act free of the restraints of common morality and the weight of the popular will.

They have already done great damage to our great republic…damage that will take generations to repair, if ever.

None Dare…

In September 2000, the PNAC, organized by Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and other prominent “neoconservatives”, published a document which called for a number of aggressive international military initiatives.

Perhaps the eeriest sentence in their report is this: “The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

A year later, September 11 happened, and three towers specifically designed to withstand airplane crashes collapsed as neatly as though they had been brought down by controlled demolition…well, guess what?

There is evidence that there was knowledge of the September 11 attacks at the highest levels of the US government. There is also evidence of sophisticated psychological-operations associated with this attack. Evidence that adds up to the inescapable truth that the institutions and safeguards that have been emplaced to keep us civilized cannot be relied upon. What better way to engender fear, uncertainty, and doubt, (FUD) than to demonstrate the inadequacy of our collective efforts and to plant inexplicable falsehoods among the obvious cold, hard facts of what occurred that day? What better way to stampede the herd into accepting the Bush administration’s new paradigm of diminished civil rights and incipient fascism?

Nearly half of the budget of the US goes to defense―to utterly no avail on Sept. 11. The failures of the systems put in place to protect the US are but one obvious, inexplicable shortcoming.

Wholly inexplicable: The Secret Service allowed Bush to remain in a public elementary school for at least a half an hour after it was apparent that the US was under attack from an unknown source and to an unknown extent…at least this was unknown to the rest of us. What other conclusion can be reached as to why Bush was not immediately moved to a more secure location than the Secret Service was instructed not to move Bush by those who knew he was not a target? [link]

Of special interest is how WTC building 7, nowhere near the north or south towers, was “pulled” (demolished) in the words of its owner, who would later net $500 million in insurance as a result.

This information is more complete and compelling than a scratchy video we are shown of someone alleged to be Osama Bin Ladin (who, on closer examination looks nothing like the real Bin Ladin) supposedly allowing himself to be filmed gloating about the success of the September 11 attacks.

This information is certainly more plausible than the claim that one of the supposed hijacker's passports was found on the street in NYC after being flown at nearly 500 miles per hour into one of the WTC towers in an airplane that incinerated itself and everyone in it upon impact. [link]

Lemme see if I've got this right.

These 15 Saudi Arabian guys, a Syrian guy, two Egyptian guys and a Jordanian guy fly four of our commercial airplanes into three buildings and a cow pasture, killing about twenty five hundred of our guys and about five hundred of other countries’ guys.

So we go after guy who supposed to be the brains of the enemy—but we mostly use other peoples’ militias and let the mastermind get away while we go after the wrong guy. We invade the wrong guy’s country, destroy his army, kill his two kids, his grandkid and a fat old security cop, and we find the wrong guy hiding in a hole all because he has Weapons of Mass Destruction—which we can’t find. So then we say the wrong guy was a bad guy because he used up all the weapons of mass destruction that we gave him back in 1983 on his own guys, and as a result we hand-pick thirty guys that didn’t like the wrong guy and declare them “the government” so that the Iraqi People have freedom.

The Iraqi people get pissed-a-plenty, kill fifteen of the guys we appoint as “the government,” and this preacher in Fallujah with a funny hat throws the 3rd Marine Division out of town.

So we take the wrong guy’s old army, give ’em all new guns and new training, and put ’em in charge of the town the preacher threw us out of.

In the meantime, three thousand more of our guys get killed and thousands more get wounded, and the bill for all of this is so big that Social Security is gonna get cancelled just about the time I’m supposed to start collecting on the thousands and thousands and thousands I’ve put in over all these years.

Now, the guy who went after the wrong guy, invaded the wrong country, pissed away my pension and got all our kids killed wants to reform Social Security because “the system is broken?”

What did Iraq have to do with any of this, other than that Bush began planning the invasion since his inauguration…

Two unnecessary wars, which were all but ready to launch by the time September 11 happened, were sold to the American people by capitalizing on the fear created by these attacks… we have seen the net result that these wars have had on America’s credibility and moral authority in the world…

Had enough of the war on terrorism yet? Bush wants it to go on indefinitely. As he smirks and says “Bring ’em on”, and racks up yearly 500 billion dollar deficits, when will we say “enough?”

Cheney Loots the US Treasury Using Halliburton:

A ‘newly unearthed’ March 2003 Pentagon e-mail says action on a no-bid Halliburton contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry was 'coordinated' with Cheney's office. Cheney was chief executive officer of the oilfield services giant from 1995 until he joined George W. Bush's presidential ticket in 2000.

The e-mail, reported by Time magazine [in its June 7, 2004, Issue], provided “clear evidence” of a relationship between Cheney and multibillion-dollar contracts Halliburton has received for rebuilding Iraq, Sen. Patrick Leahy said, “It totally contradicts the vice president’s previous assertions of having no contact.”

The Big Lie—

“…the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power…”

The Iraqi regime…possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism…. The danger is already significant, and it grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today—and we do—does it make any sense for the world to wait…for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?

GW Bush, October 2002

There is no question we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical.

March 17, 2003

Congress passes “doomsday” plan

By Nelle Straub Sunday, January 9, 2005 WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.

“I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways—first, I think it's unconstitutional,” said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel created to study the issue. “It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe, and the way in which it was done was more foolish.”

GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules package that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes, most of which were dropped.

Usually, 218 lawmakers—a majority of the 435 members of Congress—are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring war.

But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will be needed to do business under “catastrophic circumstances.”

Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House would be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or less.

The House speaker would announce the number after a report by the House Sergeant at Arms. Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber would effectively not be counted as a congressman.

The circumstances include “natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.”

The House could be run by a small number of lawmakers for months, because House vacancies must be filled by special elections. Governors can make temporary appointments to the Senate.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), one of few lawmakers active on the issue, argued the rule change contradicts the U.S. Constitution, which states that “a majority of each [House] shall constitute a quorum to do business.”

“Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than a dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,” Baird said.

I′ve Coined a New Word: “Chimperialism.”

It means bombing the $h¡† out of brown people while claiming to be bringing them democracy or freedom or some other intangible.

Dump Scalia

Antonin Scalia has recused himself from passing judgement on the “…under god…” decision facing the US Supreme Court.

If there is some conflict that prevents him from impartially rendering judgement in this case, he should recuse himself from his current position as Supreme Court Justice entirely.

Besides his unprincipled decision which handed Bush the presidency by halting the vote count in Florida, Scalia apparently believes he’s participating in a theocracy:

“…The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals has adverse effects in other areas as well. It fosters civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law—even if it does not compel him to act unjustly—need not be obeyed. St. Paul would not agree. ‘Ye must needs be subject,’ he said, ‘not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.’ For conscience sake. The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible…”

In my country, I was taught that the government derives its authority from the people.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Could combatting the tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government as effectively as possible include handing down unprincipled and partisan decisions to halt the counting of legally cast votes?

This man is a menace to our republic and he needs to be impeached.