The "Protect America Act"...Part II

With the renewal of the misnamed "Protect America Act", which has less to do with protecting America than it has with gathering even more power to the presidency in the name of national security, being debated I have one question. This piece of legislation undermines key constitutional protections against blanket warrants and provides no real accountability to either the judiciary or to Congress. Coupled with habeas corpus being effectively gutted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, US citizens are bereft of the protections against the abuse of power the Constitution was intended to protect us against.

Given that the Bush administration, every time, justifies these erosions of the Constitution in the name of "national security", my question is this, "How is supporting and protecting the Constitution incompatible with supporting and protecting America?"

Absent the Constitution, there is no America.

The "Protect America Act"...

...Has less to do with protecting America than it does with accruing more power to the Executive branch under the guise of national security. Let's look at some of it s provisions.

First is the retroactive immunity to lawsuits for those companies which participated in the electronic surveillance of US citizens without a court order/ warrant. If such behavior is legal, as the Bush administration asserts, why do these corporations require such immunity?

The report to the FISA court under this piece of legislation would detail only how the program deals with the intercepts of persons "reasonably believed" to be overseas. What becomes of those intercepts of electronic communications from ordinary Americans caught up in this fishing expedition is not detailed at all, let alone mentioned.

The bi-annual reports to congressional Judicial and Intelligence sub-committees will contain information only about the violations of the secret guidelines used by the Attorney General to target subjects of surveillance. Nor does the AG have to report on how many Americans' calls have been tapped, picked up incidentally or even how many Americans are official subjects of surveillance.

The current "sunset" clause of this pernicious law may be of little values as it will fall in the middle of a heated campaign season where there will be little, if any, enthusiasm for correcting the glaring deficiencies of this deeply flawed piece of legislation.

But most important is the nature of the "warrants"issued under this act. The Attorney General, not the court or other independent body, has the authority to issue warrants lasting up to a year against anyone "reasonably suspected" of being outside the US. The FISA court is cut entirely out of the loop. These warrants are also effectively "blanket warrants" which are a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and I quote,

...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

With the Legislative and Judicial branches effectively out of the picture oversight of the Executive branch becomes a polite fiction, at best. At worst, it becomes totally non-existent.

The Bush administration has repeatedly argued that the process of obtaining individualized warrants is "too time consuming". But under the FISA Act of 1979, the AG has 72 hours within which to retroactively obtains a warrant after the surveillance has started, and in that nearly thirty years, only four, count 'em, FOUR requests for warrants from the FISA court have been denied.

Surveillance of the citizens of a country absent effective judicial or legislative oversight is a police state tactic of benefit to no one but those holding the reigns of power. Such authority sought by the Executive branch, under the guise of national security, is little more than a power grab intended to stifle dissent and eventually identify those dissenters and target them for punishment.

The Constitution was not crafted to make abuses of power convenient for any one branch of government, particularly the Executive branch. The system of checks and balances was designed to prevent such abuses. The GOP controlled Congress of 2000 to 2007, however, shamefully placed loyalty to party and president above their duties to their constituents and the Constitution, when it rubber-stamped the Bush administrations assault on the Constitution. But as far as Bush is concerned, "...It's just a god-damned piece of paper....", after all.

I can only wonder...

...Why...If the war in Iraq is so crucial to America's security...If the greater "global war on terror", is so essential to the the future of American society...Why aren't Americans being asked to pay for it? I mean after all, our man and women in uniform are paying for it with their limbs...their mental health...THEIR LIVES...So why aren't we here, safe and snug in our homes, enjoying all that America has to offer, paying for the costs of the war?

Why hasn't American industry been marshaled to meet the needs of our service members by shifting their production capacities from the newest model year car or the latest widget to the up-armored vehicles, body armor, weapons, and spare parts our troops desperately need?

Why haven't we, the people been asked to pay the costs of this war if it is so vital to the further existence of this nation? If, as Bush and his Republican supporters claim, this war is so crucial, why aren't they willing to pony up the cash to pay for it? Hell, if it's that important, I'd be willing to sell the car, take the bus to work and pay the extra cash to help secure the country against a threat of such horrific magnitude, and I'm just a middle-class Joe.

Why aren't we paying? Because just as Bush is kicking the can that is the war down the road for the next administration to deal with, he's doing the same thing with the costs of the war. But rather than passing it on to the next administration, the next few generations of Americans will be footing the bill. Rather than do the fiscally responsible thing by raising taxes, Bush is financing his war with borrowing on an unprecedented scale from foreign interests. This practice has serious security implications for the US as well as financial ones as some of these foreign lenders don't exactly have America's best interests at heart.

So, let's push Congress to adopt David Obey's war tax...2% to 15% on every $100 of income. It's a small price to pay to see to it that our men and women in uniform have everything they need to fight for this nation and see to it they receive the care they deserve when they are wounded or maimed and their families are properly cared for should they be killed in the line of duty.

The Scum Also Rises...

Yesterday, another big, nasty turd floated to the surface of the Bush administration punchbowl. Turns out that Chimpy McPresident lied about shutting down the black sites and stopping the torture of detainees.

After stating publicly and emphatically in December of 2004 that "torture was abhorrent", a secret memo was issued by Bush administration apparatchick, fixer and Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez. This memo gave "explicit authorization" to use interrogation techniques against detainees at these "black sites" and other US facilities which meet the criteria for torture as laid out in US law, the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva conventions.

This establishment of secret prisons, legal protections for those engaging in these practices, and the overarching shroud of secrecy surrounding these operations and the Bush administration in general, are indicators of a shift towards a fascist/totalitarian regime. Given the abolition of habeas corpus, the power of the President to be the sole arbiter of who is and is not an "enemy combatant" and the new powers to declare martial law under a much looser definition of a "national emergency" are all grave threats to the Constitution and the democratic processes of this nation.

No president, Democrat or Republican, should possess the powers that the Bush administration has accrued to the Executive branch, especially powers such as those outlined above. They usurp the constitutionally established separation of powers and marginalize the Legislative and Judicial branches, which serve to maintain the checks and balances so necessary in a democracy.

There are those who would argue that a unitary executive is needed to streamline the decision making processes of government. However, the Madisonian separation of powers was never meant to promote efficiency, but rather to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power. Power which the Bush administration has exercised since 9/12/01.

George Bush's America...Laying the Foundation for Fascism

History has provided us with a very clear picture of the arc a democracy takes when it is being systematically destroyed from within. We watched this happen last September as the military seized power in Thailand, overthrowing the duly elected government.

There are a number of steps to this process, and rather like a recipe, following them will yield the desired result...A fascist state. And the political arc of the Bush administration is laying the foundation for a fascist state.

The first step is to invoke an enemy which is presented as a threat to the a country's very existence. This enemy presented itself to the Bush administration on a silver platter on September 11, 2001. A few short weeks later, with little meaningful debate, a cowed Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately the PATRIOT Act had less to do with patriotism or protecting America than it did with concentrating power into the hands of the President.

Next, an extra-judicial prison system is created. Such a system is, initially, populated by "enemies of the people". Since the populace of a given country doesn't really identify with this prison population, they fell safer and generally condone these extra-legal prisons. In the case of the Bush administration, this system is populated by "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Baghram and other as yet undisclosed locations. The caveat here is that President Bush has reserved the right to declare anyone an enemy combatant.

The establishment of a network of paramilitary groups to impose the will of the government under the auspices of restoring civil order. We see this nascent system in the rise of US dependence on PMC's (Private Military Contractors) to provide services, both at home and abroad, generally performed by the military or duly established law enforcement agencies. The deployment of Blackwater Security forces to New Orleans.

Another essential ingredient is establishing a system of internal surveillance to be deployed against a country's population. We saw this with the revelations of Bush ordering a program of warrantless surveillance of US citizens outside the bounds of FISA and Title III. With this program being justified in the name of "national securitry", this cornerstone of dictatorial power may be freely wielded by the government as a blunt weapon to keep dissent in check.

With the infiltration of anti-war groups throughout the country by various government agencies, another stone in the foundation of a fascist state has been firmly set in place by the Bush administration. And with the definition of terrorism under the PATRIOT Act so broad as to include many activities considered as activism or civil disobedience, the definition of "terrorism" eventually will expand to include mere dissent.

The most glaring example of the next ingredient, the arbitrary detention and release of citizens, comes in the form of the Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" list. This list includes peace activists, college professors, Ted Kennedy, and ordinary citizens. History has shown us that this list of potential enemies of the state only expands ever deeper into the life of the average person.

Threats to those who voice their opposition to government policies or are in positions to obstruct the implementation of increasingly oppressive government action is the next ingredient. We have seen members of the US government penalized for whistle-blowing on the ongoing corruption of US contractors in Iraq, a military lawyers career wrecked for opining that the GITMO detainees be given fair trials, threats against a law firm offering to defend the GITMO detainees pro bono. Most ominous, however was the abortive attempt to subvert the Justice Department by attempting to fire any and all federal prosecutors who place loyalty to the law and the Constitution above loyalty to party and president.

Control of the news media is crucial to any nascent fascist state. This process is underway in America with the increasing consolidation of major news outlets into fewer and fewer hands. But there are to many alternative outlets for that effort to be entirely successful. The alternative, as pointed out by Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal, is for the news well to be poisoned by a continuous stream of lies, misinformation, disinformation and dissembling coming from the White House.

Equating dissent with treason is another ingredient to this foul hell-broth. This has been used by the Bush administration soon after 9/11 when, then Attorney General, John Ashcroft gave his "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" speech before Congress. And with the passage of the Military Commissions act of 2006, Bush now has the power to charge anyone with being an "enemy combatant". It is also worth noting that President Bush can delegate any member of the executive branch to define "enemy combatant" in any way they wish.

Suspending the rule of law while paying lip service to the rule of law is the final ingredient to this noxious brew. With the Posse Comitatus Act essentially gutted by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, President Bush can declare martial law for any number of "crises" other than insurrection or invasion. Even more pernicious is the use of signing statements by President Bush in order to skirt, or outright ignore, the provisions of the laws passed by Congress and he signs into law rather than vetoing them as he should if he is in disagreement with them.

America is not yet fully down the road to a fascist state, and the transition will not be violent, as it was in Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany. It will come on "little cat feet", whilst we are transfixed by the latest episode of "American Idol" or the mos recent stumble by any of a bevy of celebretards.

Thomas Jefferson said it best..."The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Yet we, as a nation, have become distracted from that ideal and goal. Having been born in freedom we have come to take it for granted that freedom will always be there. It won't. We should allow no president the power the Bush Administration is attempting to gather to the presidency. Such power, in any hands, corrupts the wielder absolutely and will lead this nation down a path to oppression and tyranny.

Sources:

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

An Examination of Bush Fascism

The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, By: Naomi Wolf

Alan Greenspan's deconstruction of Bush's fiscal policy

" 'They (the GOP) swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose' in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate." - Alan Greenspan, NYT

The GOP abandoned its principles of fiscal conservatism and spent tax-payer money like a bunch of sailors on liberty in the Phillipines, at least when we still had a base there. And Bush never saw a GOP spending bill that he didn't like. Of course, Chimpy's dirty little war in Iraq didn't help matters any either. The total costs of the war, at least to this point are expected to exceed $2 trillion...Yes boys and girls, that's TRILLION.

And, of course, Chimpy, in order to finance the war has borrowed heavily from foreign nations in order to finance it. Never mind that some of those nations don't exactly have America's best interests at heart, which opens a whole can of worms with regard to national security. Of course the responsible thing to do would have been to eliminate Chimpy's tax cuts, and raise taxes to pay for the war, rather than foisting the burden onto future generations.

But that's what Chimpy McPresident is best at...Kicking the can down the road...passing the problem on for someone else to clean up. He's been doing it his whole life, only this time, Poppy can't quietly hush things up with a little cash to quiet the squeaky wheels and make records disappear. To many have witnessed and documented the trail of wreckage of the Bush administration has left in its wake. We'll be left trying to clean up this mess for decades, maybe even generations, to come, while Chimpy tries to skate off and wash his hands of it. But that much blood leaves an indelible stain.

George W. Bush...Right about Viet Nam, for the wrong reason

In drawing an analogy between Viet Nam and Iraq, Bush was right, but not for the reasons that have sprung from the voices in his head.

The lessons from Viet Nam have more to do with the consequences of starting an war on the basis of flawed, spun and cooked intel, as was done with the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution...as was done with the Bush administration's justifications for invading Iraq.

The consequences of the withdrawal from Viet Nam were a direct result of the flawed reasoning behind the war to begin with. We see the same political decisions behind the strategy, or lack thereof, in Viet Nam as we see behind the failed strategies in Iraq.

The consequences of withdrawal from Iraq will be no different if Bush and his administration remain as stubbornly intransigent about refusing to engage with those nations which border Iraq and the region as they have to date. The region will be further destabilized and the current proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'ia Iraq could explode into a hot war threatening not only the region, but the world at large. The sectarian violence, some would say civil war, would explode into an orgy of death and destruction. Why? Because Bush went into Iraq for no reason other than he could and he and his neo-con supporters cooked the intel to get their way...A war of choice for specious reasons...Just like Viet Nam. Should we expect any difference, then, in the outcome?

"Dying for a nation that's not..."

Of all the absurdities attending our unending war in Iraq, the greatest is this: We are fighting to defend that which is not there.

We are fighting for a national government that is not national but sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party, which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.

Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds of Iraqis. What Iraqis believe in are sectarian or tribal Iraqs -- a Shiite Iraq, a Sunni Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish Iraqi state, an Iraq where Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani or Muqtada al-Sadr or some other chieftain holds sway. - The Sacramento Bee

The Shi'ite led Iraqi 'government' is on vacation for two months while our troops fight and die in Baghdad's streets. Iraqi security forces either don't show up, or show little interest in doing more than settling grudges with Sunni rivals in the areas our troops have cleared. Combined US/Iraqi forces hold 1/3, or fewer, Baghdad neighborhoods. The death toll amongst our troops is already on a pace to outstrip last month's casualties. Yet Bush and his administration fiddle while Baghdad burns.

With more and more retired generals who served on the ground in Iraq, Gen Sanchez being the latest, speaking out against the administration's policy in Iraq. Bush and Co talk of a 50 year presence in Iraq as if that would be the magic sword to cut the Gordian knot that Iraq has become under the leadership (I'm using that term lightly here) of their administration.

Iraqi citizen's don't see a unified Iraq, rather they see it as territories divided between Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ias and are taking steps on their own to establish those divisions, particularly amongst the Sunnis and Shi'ias, the Kurds are doing fine on their own.

The Bush administration couldn't have foreseen these consequences as they lacked the breadth of vision to actually see the sweep of history in that region, and elsewhere. In their arrogance, they simply assumed that they could go in, take out Hussein and a grateful populace would quickly fall in line behind whatever government was installed. Never mind that it was Saddam Hussein's ruthlessness and brutality that kept these sectarian rivalries at bay.

We have a recent lesson in what happens when a strong-man dictator is removed from the scene abruptly. Remember Yugoslavia? Tito's death gave us the horrors of ethnic cleansing as Serbs and Croats slaughtered each other in an internecine struggle that had been contained by the force of Tito's rule. But history has been but a a minor footnote to Bush and his cronies, they didn't forget history...they simply ignored it. And now, they've repeated it.

The Supreme Court...Ideology Trumps Medical Science

Lost amidst the horror of the massacre at Virginia Tech and the anticipation of the Roman circus that was Alberto Gonzalez's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision which was a stunning triumph of ideology over medical science, good jurisprudence and stare decisis.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the 2003 law banning "partial birth" abortions. This law, cheerfully signed by President Bush, makes no exception for the health of the mother. The court had no problem with this matter, despite the fact that many medical institutions and peer reviewed journals have shown that there can be a medical necessity for this very procedure which can save the woman's life.

This ruling also inserts the government into the decision making process which has, heretofore, been solely between the physician and patient, and also appears to violate HIPPA, which protects the privacy of a patients health care information. After all, if health care providers can't discuss medical information without the patient's permission, how can the government interfere lacking either the consent or invitation of either the patient or health care provider?

This case also opens the door for the government to intrude into other areas of health care, most especially end of life issues. As we saw in their horribly botched attempt to prevent Terri Schiavo's husband from carrying out her wishes.

This ruling by the SCOTUS, will open the door to even more draconian efforts on the part of state legislatures to write laws which further limit a woman's access to abortions. It will only be a matter of time before we see attempts to introduce laws as intrusive and punitive as those in El Salvador

Another aspect of this decision is that states may write and enact such laws on the basis of "moral", read as "religious", grounds, rather than any medical or legal grounds. I can see the religious zealots in this country who want to push gays and lesbians back into the closet on "moral", read as "religious", grounds rather than on the basis of any realistic criteria; pushing to resurrect sodomy laws that have already been struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. This latter especially since stare decisis no longer seems to matter.

This decision will allow Dubbyuh's sins, in the eyes of his red-meat religious right wing-nut base, to be forgiven. It was, after all, Dubbyuh who packed the court with right wing ideologues dedicated to, ultimately, overturning Roe v. Wade. Their decision on the matter was made before they ever became members of the SCOTUS, and for supposedly impartial interpreters of the law, that is simply unacceptable.

Tony Snow...He coulda starred in "Flipper"

The latest volley from the White House over the US attorney sackings involves executive privilege. Firstly, as a CNN reporter pointed out, if the President hadn't been briefed on the matter of the attorney sackings, their was no communication on the matter. There was no 'privileged' communication to shield.

Secondly, Tony Snow, as well as a number of Republicans, have done such an abrupt 180 on the issue of executive privilege that I'm amazed they didn't break their necks. Let me offer you a little gem from Tony's column in 1998:

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law. - Tony Snow, Executive Privilege is a Dodge, 03/29/1998

This sentiment was echoed by many Republicans in their, what I thought entirely justified, criticism of Goatboy and his administration. That Republicans now whole-heartedly embrace the concept of executive privilege, for the reasons thus far enumerated by the Bush administration, is simply hypocritical.

As for going through the courts, this SCOTUS has already established legal precedent regarding this issue. In the case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court found that there are very definite limitations on claims of executive privilege.

The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. United States v. Nixon,Section IVb, para 3

There are clearly no "military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets" at stake here. In fact if, as the White House claims, the President was not briefed on this matter at all, no claim of executive privilege exists. The White House hasn't a legal leg to stand on in this matter.

Common Threads

The last week revealed some events with a common thread. While there was some coverage of these events, they were overshadowed by the Scooter Libby verdict.

There was the revelation that the FBI violated the law in its use of "National Security Letters", provided for under the USA PATRIOT Act. Hundreds of thousands of Americans phone records, bank records, e-mail transactions and medical records were the subject of fishing expeditions. The FBI attributed this to sloppy record keeping, and poorly trained personnel. Given that many of these NSL's were issued after the fact, to cover illegal records demands...Illegal even under the loose requirements for probable cause under the PATRIOT Act. The FBI's pleas of incompetence and faulty equipment are simply not credible.

It also came to light that a number of US attorneys, eight to be exact, were sacked and replaced by the DoJ under an obscure provision of the revised PATRIOT Act. This provision allows federal attorneys to be appointed to fill vacancies for an unlimited period, and without going through the Congressional confirmation process. The Arkansas attorney was replaced by a former aid of Karl Rove. Another attorney received phone calls from a House member and a Senator about sealed indictments related to democrats in New Mexico. The Senator has since lawyered up and refusing to comment on the matter.

The common thread, of course, is abuse of power. The abuse of power under the PATRIOT Act, the abuse of power that critics of the Act warned about from the day the Act was signed into law. The abuse of power by an administration intent on concentrating power in the hands of the executive branch and acting as if it, and its members, are above the law.

Seig heil, y'all.

La Plus Ca Change...

For those non-French speakers out there, that roughly translates as "The more things change...". And, as we all know, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

F'rinstance, and I'll be providing the source of these quotes at the end:

"...Many...proclaimed the need for strong leadership, ruthless, uncompromising, hard, willing to strike down the enemies of the nation without compunction..."(1)

This could come from most any position paper of most any of the neo-cons infesting our government at the highest levels.

"...cheap, sensationalist tabloids that were sold on the streets...rather than depending on regular subscribers. Heavily illustrated, with massive coverage of sport, cinema, local news, scandal and sensation, these papers placed the emphasis on entertainment rather than information."(2)

This statement pretty thoroughly covers media in America today. With news departments in both print and broadcast media facing draconian cuts in funding, the emphasis on news has shifted from information to entertainment. In the absence of reliable news sources, the public will turn to whatever is available, regardless of its reliability.

"...We no longer found an honest...people, but a mob stirred up by its lowest instincts. Whatever virtues were once found...seemed to have sunk once and for all into the muddy flood...Women seemed to have forgotten their...ways...Men seemed to have forgotten their honour and honesty...Writers and press could 'go to town' with impunity, dragging everything into the dirt." (3)

This could come from just about any right wing rant or screed today. Threatened, confused and off balanced by a changing world, they fall back into moralizing. The true mark of our humanity is our ability to retain our balance in a changing world. I'll have more to say on this quote later.

"There was a discernible crisis of masculinity...as nationalists...began to clamor for women's return to home and family..."(4)

America's religious right seems intent on putting the genie of independent women back into the bottle, no pun intended for "I Dream of Jeannie" fans. A significant number of men in this country seem to feel threatened by strong, independent women, just as a significant number of women seem to feel threatened by freedom and independence. Is it just coincidental that they all seem to be congregating in the tent of America's religious right?

"Even more shocking to conservatives was the public campaigning for gay rights...Numerous publications propagated the controversial idea that homosexuals were a 'third sex' whose orientation was the product of congenital rather than environmental factors.(5)

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same debate the religious right in America seems intent on engaging in, even to the point of having their religious views on the matter of same gender couples codified into law.

The topicality of these quotes is all the more remarkable given their source, "The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans".

In his history of the rise of the Third Reich, from the 19th century to Hitler's rise to power, the author examines the underlying factors which gave birth to the Third Reich. Many of those factors are extant in America today, and only through continuing vigilance can we prevent America heading down the same disastrous path.

Quotes from "The Coming of the Third Reich":

1. Pg 122, "In place of the feeble compromises of parliamentary democracy, authors such as these, and many others, proclaimed the need for strong leadership, ruthless, uncompromising, hard, willing to strike down the enemies of the nation without compunction." The authors referred to were writers of popular nationalist fiction which portrayed bloody retribution against all who opposed the state.

2. Pg 120

3. Pg 126, "Returning home, we no longer found an honest German people, but a mob stirred up by its lowest instincts. Whatever virtues were once found among the Germans seemed to have sunk once and for all into the muddy flood. German women seemed to have forgotten their German ways.German men seemed to have forgotten their honour and honesty. Jewish writers and the Jewish press could 'go to town' with impunity, dragging everything into the dirt."

This was recalled by a German military officer, upon returning from W.W. I. Substitute 'American' for 'German' and 'mainstream' for 'Jewish', and you have much the same argument from the American conservative movement today.

4. Pg 127, "There was a discernible crisis of masculinity in Germany before the war (W.W.I)as nationalists and Pan-Germans began to clamor for women's return to home and family in order to fulfill their destiny of producing and educating more children for the nation."

Some in the right-wing noise machine in today's America have voiced concern over their perceived emasculation of the America male. This is characterized by the crazed ramblings of commentators such as Michael Savage-Weiner when he, and others of his ilk, and their complaints about the downtrodden "...heterosexual, Christian, white male...".

5) Pg 128

America is at a political and cultural crossroads. With an executive branch largely resistant to any outside influence and intent on gathering as much power to itself as it can...with the concentration of media ownership limiting the reliability and availability of information to the electorate...with an increasingly strident movement which hides its bigotry and intolerance behind the veil of religion...America stands at a crossroads. The repudiation of the Bush administration in the November elections gives me some measure of hope. That hope, though, is tempered by the stubborn intransigence of the Bush administration to listen to the voters, advisors, generals or anyone who has a differing view from their messianic, manichean vision for America. But that hope is still there, and the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Another Episode of "Thank You President Bush!"

IN a speech before the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, Chimpy McPresident stated:

For NATO to succeed, allies must make sure that we fill the security gaps. In other words, when there is a need, when our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries, we need additional help, our NATO countries must provide it in order to be successful in this mission.

We've all known, for some time now, that Chimpy and his Administration is irony deficient, or they would have recognized the irony in chiding NATO over its role in Afghanistan. And more than a few NATO members fail to share the Bush administration's messianic view of the "war on terror".

Then too, here are a few starkly simple facts. The Bush administration failed to capture Osama bin Laden when he was bottled up in Torah Borah, they failed to excise the twin cancers of the Taliban and Al Qaeda when they were scattered and on the run in Afghanistan. Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to go haring off into Iraq under the flimsiest of pretexts. Is it any wonder then that NATO members view his calls for a greater commitment of NATO forces to Afghanistan with a jaundiced eye? It was, after all, Chimpy and Co. who left the job unfinished in Afghanistan, where war-lords and drug-lords now rule the country side and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now returning to enforce their particular ecumenism of the sword.

Having already strained the goodwill of many of our allies, Chimpy merely adds insult to injury with his admonishments to our NATO allies, and strains the very meaning of the treaty. If allowed to continue on his present course, America will soon find herself isolated and alone. And that is no longer an option...for any nation.

Thank you, President Bush.

They still don't get it...

When Congress Commits Treason

The Fifth Column Raymond S. Kraft
February 5, 2007


Al Qaeda wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Hezbollah wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Iran wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Muqtada al Sadr wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Osama bin Laden wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. When an American political party aligns itself with the goals, hopes, and ambitions of America's enemies in a time of war, in my view there is only one word for it - Treason.

Today, most of the "leading Democrats" in Congress are falling all over themselves to give aid, comfort, and hope, to the Jihad, the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Islamist movement for the decline and fall of Western Civilization and the ascendance of Jihadist Islam in Iraq and around the world. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and many of the rest give their assurance that with Democrats in power, America will retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender, selling their souls and their country down the river for primary votes and and trucks of money from the Pacifist Left. Here, the ignominious spectacle of Democrats selling out the future freedom of the Iraqi people for votes and dollars. Osama bin Laden once called America "a paper tiger." America's Democrats seem determined to prove him right. Treason for votes. Treason for dollars. Treason as a political calculation. Treason, for revenge on George Bush.

What complete and utter BULLSHIT. Not a shred of evidence to support his assertions, but that's typical of these right wing-nut thought clones. It has been their tactic, from the months and weeks immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, for the Administration and it fawning syncophants to smear anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq as "unpatriotic", "un-American", "troop-hating", and any other epithet which would cast doubt on their loyalty to America. It's a classic agitprop technique for whipping up support for an unpopular, and in this case, unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is best summed up by Herman Goering's statement at the Nuremberg Trials:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Fortunately, the majority of Americans have awoken to just how wrong the invasion of Iraq was, and just how incompetent this administration was (and is) in its prosecution of it. Now, if only Congress and Chimpy will only listen.

The right running scared...already.

You could see it starting...With Melanie Morgan on KSFO's Melanie Morgan. She fired the first salvo in the race-baiting that has become the right wing-nut assault on Barak Obama. On the December 4th, 2006 edition of Sussman, Morgan & Vic, Brian Sussman stated that, "Halfrican and, again, his father was -- his father was from Kenya, his mother's white.", egged on by co-host Melanie Morgan saying, "Senator Obama, who is, as you call, a 'Halfrican' --".

This sentiment was later echoed buy Rush Limbaugh on January 16th as he referred to Senator Obama by stating, "And for Barack Obama, a -- well, he's a half-minority...". Limbaugh later abandoned all pretense and stole the line from Melanie Morgan and Brian Sussman when he went on to say, "Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans,".

It should be clear to anyone, by now, that the right wing-nut media...in the persons of Brian Sussman, Melanie Morgan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage-Weiner, et al...,is showing its true colors. The here-to-fore sub rosa racism of America's hard right is surfacing in all of its ugliness with the appellations "hafrican", "half-minority" and other less obvious references to Obama's race. It appears to be their belief that only rich white, heterosexual (at least in public), Christian (again, at least in public), males should hold the keys to power in this nation. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton both threaten that nasty little paradigm.

And now we have the now exploded myth that Barak Obama was educated in a madrassa while he was living in Indonesia. Insight posted an unsourced story asserting that Senator Obama was raised as a Muslim and educated at a madrassa while he was living in Indonesia as a child. CNN sent a reporter to verify this asssertion, only to find that the "madrassa" was a public school attended by Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and children of other faiths as well.

Even more interesting is that the Insight story asserted that Hillary Clinton's campaign office leaked this information to Insight after performing a background check on Senator Obama, but no evidence was presented by Insight to support this claim. There are also equally weak claims from other sources in the same right wing-nut quarter that the information was leaked by John Edward's campaign office. So, the right wing-nut media is attempting to smear three liberal/progressive candidates with the same foul brush.

This ugliness, surfacing as early as it does in the campaign cycle, seems to indicate a degree of fear and loathing for Obama and Clinton which has less to do with their qualifications for office than it does their race or gender. But that's been the dirty little secret of right wing politics in America since the civil-rights movement in the sixties. This view was perhaps best voiced by Michael Savage-Weiner on his January 15th broadcast:

It (civil rights)is a whole industry; it's a racket. It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it.

The words of a fearful little man, seeking the approval of other fearful little men. Obama and Clinton...They must scare the living hell out of the lunatics.

Haven't we heard this somewhere before?

I haven't slept as well as I usually do since out Great and Fearless Leader gave an address this last Tuesday that wasn't so much about securing Iraq as it was about dragging Iran and Syria into this whole ugly mess. Now, I'm not normally an anxiety ridden person. You can't be in my profession, that of registered nurse, and lead a normal life.

But I just woke up with this leaden feeling in my belly (No, it wasn't the Taco Bell and egg-salad I had last night), and the words of Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, echoing in my ears as he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday.

"Oh gosh, you sillies. Of course President Bush doesn't have any plans to attack Iran. Except...you know...as a LAST RESORT.

Now whereinthehell have we heard that before.

"...the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort." - Scott McClellan, 11/12 /02 White House Press Briefing

This coming long after Chimpy McPresident and his merry band had decided to Iraq was to be plucked like an over-ripe fruit.

Given this Presidents past history, I could only wonder why someone in Congress didn't fall all over themselves trying to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry in the House to get the ball rolling on impeaching these crazy bastards before they do something we all will regret more than we already regret invading Iraq. How could they not see the rocks this President, and his administration, are steering this ship of state towards.

This administration reminds of nothing so much as a bunch of monkeys playing with a box of matches in a fuel refinery. One spark, at any moment, and the whole thing will explode in a conflagration that will engulf, not just the region, but quite possibly the entire world as well. One that will make the last world war look like a Sunday school outing in comparison, and one from which the United states will not emerge unscathed or victorious.

When Seymour Hersch wrote his article about US forces moving into Iran back in April of 2006, he and anyone who agreed with his analysis, were dismissed as being alarmists and in need of some psychotherapy. But the reality is staring us in the face...Here...Now. This President is locked into some sick, messianic vision, and he is determined to see that vision through to the end regardless of the cost in blood and treasure...Regardless of the consequences to this nation or the world. That Congress is not dropping their partisan squabbling in order to check this President and his administration is a mystery. Better we have a constitutional crisis than an expanded war in the Middle East and likely beyond.

Consequences...The truth, apparently, doesn't seem to matter

In the aftermath of Chimpy McPresident's address little is being said about the deeper implications of his "strategy" or its consequences.

It is readily apparent that this president is recklessly and callously launching upon a course which will goad Iran into some action which, in turn, will justify the use of America military force against that nation. It is equally apparent that such a use of force will include air-strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities...Long a goal of the Administration, but thwarted by the international community in the form of refusal to sanction Iran for its nuclear program.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” - The New Yorker, 04/08/06

Bush's actions seem to give truth to this assessment...That he will do what ever he feels he needs to do, regardless of the cost or the consequences. Regardless of the cost in human lives, let alone the cost of the lives of our own troops. Regardless of the consequences, which include a larger war in the region that could lead to a general world-wide conflict.

Given these reckless, feckless actions and the utter disregard for any consequences of those actions, it is clear that this administration is unfit for command and Congress should put aside partisan differences and immediately file articles of impeachment against this president and his administration before they strike a spark to a conflagration that could engulf, not only the Persian Gulf, but the world.