Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Prosecute Bush For Murder
If there is a single hallmark of my writing it has been the pursuit of strategies for Americans to adopt on an individual or group basis on the local level in order to cause large scale change. It is from this point of view that I take an interest in legendary prosecutor and best selling author Vincent Bugliosi's new book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder." I'll come back to that hook after some context.
While I just ordered the book from Amazon and have not yet read it, the title conveys the simple premise, the basic details are amply explored online, and the book is already a best-seller despite a near media blackout. On this last point it is interesting to see the NY Times interview Bugliosi, as well a CNN video clip focusing on the media's disinterest posted at Raw Story.
The shortage of coverage is primarily on the TV talk show circuit, which has previously featured Bugliosi promoting his earlier books. It has also been reported that ads for the book have been rejected, including by ABC Radio for the Don Imus show. The book's exposure has come mainly through radio interviews, online ads, and significant word of mouth. Here is a transcript from Democracy Now! and a brief interview with The Nation.
On July 25, Bugliosi was also one of the witnesses who testified before the House Judiciary Committee (C-SPAN video via YouTube below). The Committee's business that day was instigated by the single article of impeachment against Bush introduced July 10 by OH Congressman Dennis Kucinich (not part of his previous 35 articles against Bush or his three articles against Cheney from April 2007). In typical false alternative fashion the hearing into the "Imperial Presidency" had some limited parameters mentioned here and in the opening of Bugliosi's statement below:
Bugliosi has been adamant that his proposed prosecution of Bush is not hypothetical or rhetorical. He claims the book establishes jurisdiction for hundreds of state and federal prosecutors as well as thousands of district attorneys throughout the US in any community that has seen a military member die in Iraq. Copies of the book have been sent to many such prosecutors, and really, all it takes is one.
So here's the thing. As justified as impeachment is, I'm not the only one to offer an explanation for why it hasn't and won't happen. But even if somehow all the reasons were rendered moot, it is still a strategy that depends on convincing a large number of people to do something. On the other hand, at least to get the ball rolling behind Bugliosi's idea, all it takes is one. That makes it much more appealing from the standpoint of transformational strategy, lower hanging fruit that can be pursued not only by individuals and small groups, but both independently and in tandem simultaneously across the land.
I would think that the way to start in any community is first finding family members of fallen soldiers who are willing to encourage their local district attorney. This surely requires a high level of tact and sensitivity, though perhaps Gold Star Families For Peace may represent a head start in any given location. I welcome referrals to or direct contact with any such people.
Yes, this is still a long shot and I'm not anticipating dropping everything to focus on it. However, as I said here at WDNC as recently as two night ago, all pretenses of progress will be mere illusions (and slogans of hope and change unfortunate delusions) unless and until we restore justice and the rule of law.
It has to start sometime
What better place than here
What better time than now
--Rage Against The Machine, "Guerrilla Radio"
* * *
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/prosecute-bush-for-murder.html
Labels: Cheney, Dennis Kucinich, false alternative, George W. Bush, Gold Star Families For Peace, impeachment, Prosecute Bush For Murder, Rage Against The Machine, Vincent Bugliosi
Monday, June 09, 2008
Breaking: Rep. Kucinich Reading Impeachment Articles Against Bush
Watch C-Span.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/06/breaking-rep-kucinich-reading.html
Labels: Dennis Kucinich, George W. Bush, impeachment
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Kool-Aid Reference Conjures Varied Meanings
A few weeks ago I posted a crude photoshop job superimposing the face of Senator Barack Obama over the classic red pitcher icon representing Kool-Aid. My comments were very limited. I thought the message was clear: a news article quoting Obama saying Bush and Cheney do not warrant impeachment shows the crazed or delusional thinking that is implied when saying someone drank the Kool-Aid. I received some comments about this in private e-mail that warrant exploring here.
First, Dave Migliore, perhaps my oldest friend, wrote to caution me about this image. He said that Black people may find this reference offensive or even racist. I was incredulous and had never heard of such a connotation before. He sent me a link to the urban dictionary. I was sensitive to having set off his radar and definitely wanted to know if I had misstepped. However, the listings at that link did not make his case.
I then Googled Kool-Aid and offensive, and Kool-Aid and racist, and still found nothing that supported his concern, though I did turn up at least two good reads that reinforced my intended usage. From last February, see AlterNet's "No One's Drinking Bush's Kool-Aid on Iran". Then there is Michael Fauntroy, a prominent Black media figure who just last month wrote that he was "Lambasted for Not Drinking the Obama Kool-Aid":It's hard out here for Black pundits/analysts/commentators who haven't come around to drinking the Barack-Obama-is-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread-how-
This passage was the closest together I could even find the words Kool-Aid and racism, and the author is in no way claiming the Kool-Aid reference is racist or offensive. I would say he is using it in the exact same way that I did.
did-we-ever-exist-as-a-nation-without-him-this-is-our-last-best-
chance-to-elect-a-Black-president-so-we-better-support-him-see-I-told-you-
racism-is-dead Kool-Aid. I have learned an unfortunate lesson in observing the Democratic presidential nomination fight: In too many segments of the country – Black and White – to express any skepticism about Barack Obama is considered political heresy. I'm blown away by this discovery, because it suggests a dangerous group think: Obama is the only agent of change and to not praise him at every opportunity is to support the status quo (And, oh, by the way, Hilary is the devil!).
OK, breathing a little easier. Maybe kick back and enjoy a cold glass of, no wait a minute.
Along comes Tom Sebourn, program director/newsdude from local progressive talk radio station KGOE. By the way, check Tom's new blog. Tom was pissed off when he wrote to me, though not necessarily pissed at me. He needed to know that my posting was only coincidentally timed with another Obama Kool-Aid reference that had appeared in the Eureka Times-Standard. There was no connection and I had not even seen the image. He sent this link.
If you click that you'll see a cartoon with a sea of faces looking up at a pitcher of Kool-Aid in what is obviously Obama's hand. The cartoon has Obama asking "Drink the Kool-Aid?" and the crowd responding with Obama's tag line "Yes We Can." This image is in color, but the T-S had printed it in black and white. In the paper, Tom said it looked like the sea of faces were all non-white people. He mentioned to me that he and his father both found it "repugnant." The T-S has since printed a letter from Sebourn the senior.
As Tom and I delved a little deeper, he came to hypothesize that there is a generation cap dividing our association of the Kool-Aid reference. While I was just six at the time, Tom is a bit older and actually remembers seeing the Jonestown massacre on the news.
Tom said his association when hearing the Kool-Aid reference is always about a group event where people were forced at gunpoint to commit suicide. Because it was such an atrocity, Tom said, anyone old enough to remember may find more flippant references in bad taste, or worse. However, Tom did allow that the crazy/delusional implication has become sufficiently widespread and common that it should not cast a pall of racism on those who use it.
So I feel absolved of concerns I may have inadvertently made a racist post, however I think it would be interesting to read more opinions on Tom's theory of an age-based difference in perception of what the Kool-Aid reference means. Comments are welcome.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/kool-aid-reference-conjures-varied.html
Labels: AlterNet, Barack Obama, Dave Migliore, Eureka T-S, impeachment, Jonestown massacre, KGOE, Kool-Aid, Michael Fauntroy, Tom Sebourn, urban dictionary
Monday, February 18, 2008
Noticing New Hampshire
Over the weekend, and from out of my peripheral vision, the New Hampshire Primary Election recount got my attention. Republican Presidential Candidate Albert Howard continues to press ahead, revealing much about what went wrong on January 8th. Excerpts from his most recent communique, a Petition of Appeal filed with NH Secretary of State William Gardner, are shown below. But first, let me take you back to the 11/29/07 post here at WDNC, talking about impeachment coming out of NH:With a few weeks gone by now, I don't really see that Kucinich's welcome bravado did anything to shift control of the impeachment issue. Worth noting, though, is this statement by New Hampshire State Representative Betty Hall. While I don't consider her endorsement of Kucinich's presidential candidacy to be too relevant, she goes much further by introducing her own impeachment resolution in the NH House.
I had a voice message from Lehto earlier this evening saying he was en route to NH to testify for Rep. Hall. He also pointed me to this DU thread containing this video about the resolution and its courageous carrier.
At least two things are significant about this. First, while it may take a few months, NH law guarantees this resolution will get a full floor vote - it cannot be killed in committee. The other important part of this development is that Hall's resolution was drafted primarily by Paul Lehto, election protection attorney, co-founder of psephos-us.org, and the author of the Foreword to my book, We Do Not Consent (free .pdf download). The genius Lehto displays here is connecting the necessity of impeachment with the absolute destruction of legitimate elections. The final paragraph of the resolution:That, for directly harming the rights and manner of suffrage, for suffering to make them secret and unknowable, for instituting debates and doubts about the true nature of elections, all against the will and consent of local voters affected, and forced through threats of litigation, the actions of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to do the opposite of securing and guaranteeing the right of the people to alter or abolish their government, being a violation of an inalienable right, and an immediate threat to Liberty, is good cause for impeachment to be immediately granted.
Of the dozens if not hundreds of good causes for impeachment, this one may be the oldest chronologically if we go back to November and December 2000.
Truly outstanding! Both above and below...Excerpts from:
Wow. Just wow. It is time we all start noticing New Hampshire.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_nancy_to_080216_gop_candidate_albert.htm
Petition of Appeal, noted violations and weaknesses in NH recount cited below
Petition of Appeal to the Ballot Law Commission
c/o Office of the Secretary of State, William Gardner
State House
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
by Albert Howard, Republican candidate for President of the United States
New Hampshire Primary Election of January 8th, 2008
Date: February 15, 2008
Petitioner: Albert Howard, Pro Se 710 Apple St. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1750
Subject of Petition: Appeal of results of the Presidential Primary recount completed February 11, 2008; examination of contested ballots in that recount.
Relief Requested: That the Ballot Law Commission and the Secretary of State's office disclaim any opinion on the accuracy of the Presidential primary election AND the statewide Republican recount because checks and balances to maintain the integrity of the ballots and the total counts were either not followed, or not in place.
(snip)
VIOLATION #1: Machine failures were handled improperly -- and possibly altered the outcome of the election.
(snip)
Town clerks have told Dori Smith, a journalist from Connecticut, that memory cards were "switched out" in some towns by LHS employees, counter to state election laws, calling into question the chain of custody of these critical "electronic ballot boxes".
(snip)
VIOLATION # 2: Machine failures render equipment non-compliant with HAVA regulations.
Fact: HAVA requires that the error rate of machines used be no greater than one error in 500,000 ballot positions. In one of the most recent tests, at the University of Connecticut, the Diebold Precinct-Based Optical Scan Accuvote 1.94W system (AV OS), demonstrated a failure rate of roughly 3.4 %. This puts New Hampshire in an unfortunate situation and the integrity of its election results in question. I urge the Ballot Law Commission and the Secretary of State's office to seriously consider restoring elections utilizing 100% hand counted paper ballots. The fundamentals are in place for a meaningful and transparent election. The Diebold Optical Scan equipment you currently use is indeed problematic due to its proven vulnerabilities and inaccuracies. Diebold itself issued a Product Advisory Note about this machine on January 25, 2008 describing a known failure.
REMEDIAL ACTION REQUESTED: The very best thing New Hampshire could do is decertify the current equipment and find alterative means of vote counting. I strongly recommend hand counting all of the ballots. New Hampshire has established such an excellent system for community vote-counting, and the hand count method - especially the sort and stack method as was used for the recounts --that has time and time again proven to be the most accurate and by far the least costly method of counting citizens' votes.
(snip)
VIOLATION #3: The location of the memory cards post-election were reported "unknown".
(snip)
VIOLATION #4: The boxes of ballots were not picked up for the recounts by State Police.
(snip)
VIOLATION #5: Ballots were not stored and transported in boxes provided by the Secretary of State's office.
Fact: Boxes arrived at the State Archive Building for the recount in non-uniform boxes, with various methods of taping, many not properly sealed. One jurisdiction sent their ballots in bundles wrapped in newspaper. Others came wrapped in brown paper. Some boxes came with no tape. Many ballots were returned in the same boxes in which they were received from the printer/Secretary of State's office, but this led to some ambiguity about when and by whom openings in the boxes had been made.
(snip)
VIOLATION #6: Many ballot boxes were not properly sealed, and what were referred to as "seals" would not safeguard the ballots from tampering.
Fact. "Seals" meant to secure the boxes were in fact "labels"; they did not stick securely to the boxes, could be easily removed and re-attached, and left no evidence of having been removed and reattached from the box on which they'd been placed. As such they were not "seals" to the boxes; in order for the ballots to be secure, real tape was needed to bind the boxes. Many ballot boxes were delivered to the State Archive Building for recounting with tops not secured and with slits in them large enough for a hand to fit through.
(snip)
VIOLATION #7: The uncounted ballots were not always kept overnight in the security of the "ballot vault."
(snip)
VIOLATION #8: Ballots were not always delivered in an open and public manner.
Fact. On many days of the recount, ballots were delivered after the recount had ended for the day, after dark, when most of the employees were gone from the building, and their delivery was not witnessed by any member of the public or citizen monitors.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/noticing-new-hampshire.html
Labels: Albert Howard, Betty Hall, impeachment, New Hampshire, Paul Lehto, William Gardner
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Hey Kool-Aid!
I started looking over Senator Barack Obama's Blueprint For Change, a 64-page .pdf meant as a comprehensive policy positioning statement for his presidential campaign. I skimmed about half of it and find I'm more curious about what is not in there. So I Googled "obama impeachment" and this USA Today article from last June was the first hit.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm
I'm not much of a visual artist, with but the meekest of PhotoShop skills. Still, I can't help myself...
Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
(snip)
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.
"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/hey-kool-aid.html
Labels: Barack Obama, Blueprint For Change, impeachment, Kool-Aid, PhotoShop, USA Today
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Some things I've been meaning to tell you...
My North Coast Journal book review of Naomi Wolf's "End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the references I see out there. I had promised to post a bunch of links and I regret the delay. I urge you to listen closely to what she is saying. This list is by no means comprehensive.
Lecture at University of Washington, 10/11/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Lecture in Baltimore, MD, 11/7/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h117oU65fIc
On Stephen Colbert's show:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/63860/
Mind Over Matters radio interview 10/22/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs
Last Sunday Wolf penned an OpEd for the Washington Post. She periodically posts to Huffington Post. She gave a good interview to BuzzFlash back in September. And from another good one last week with Don Hazen at AlterNet:DH: Well there's a lot of activity currently in terms of the Justice Department aimed at purging voters ... reducing voter rolls ... that's an ongoing battle to try to keep voters eligible. Conservatives are always trying to reduce the electorate. By the way, are you familiar with Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism?
Where to begin to comment? First of all, I am now reading the Naomi Klein book (Shock Doctine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) referenced above and I recommend it as strongly as I have with Wolf's book. Earlier this year I read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. As I make my way through Klein's book I am recognizing a tight nexus between all three books. Just as Wolf traces historical echoes of dictatorships, parallels common to the story of all authoritarians closing down open societies, Klein takes the same regimes and angles in on the economic shock therapy typically used to pave the way down a path shepherded by Perkins the hit man, in other words perpetual servitude to the American empire.
NW: Yes, and it all makes a lot of sense. And its certainly historically true. We're in this post-9/11 period when there is a lot of potential for these kind of "shock therapy" things to happen, but virtually everything ... has happened previously in history in patterns. It's just the blueprint. It's not rocket science.
I could tell last fall when a law was passed expanding the definition of terrorists to include animal rights activists, that people who look more like you and me would start to be called terrorists, which is a classic tactic in what I call a fascist expansion.
DH: Don't look at me -- I'm not a vegetarian. Just kidding.
NW: (Laughs) Right. It's also predictive ... according to the blueprint, that the state starts to torture people that most of us don't identity with, because they're brown, Muslim, people on an island. They're called an enemy.
That there will be a progressive blurring of the line, and six months, two years later, you're going to see it spread to others. ... According to the blueprint, we're right on schedule that this kid recently got tasered in Florida, I gather, for asking questions.
Notice above that Wolf says "blurring of the line." To me, this reinforces and builds upon the notion of inherent uncertainty, which is often created by falsely balanced contradictions or completely unverifiable claims. The added uncertainty that Wolf is forecasting is a more individual consideration. It amounts to a People who live with a nagging fear - am I next?
It is also important that Wolf invokes a blueprint for the onset of fascism. Even more important is her statement that it is predictive. In the BuzzFlash interview, she rhetorically asks:"...if it is reasonable to assume we will have fair, transparent elections. Given all these violations of these sacred tenets of democracy, do you really think that George Bush is going to say, fourteen months from now, that the great pageant of democracy -- a fair election -- must proceed without intervention or corruption? That the people have spoken, the people's will be done? Is that really common sense?"
This position she arrives at is the same one I've held for seven years, though we get there in different ways. She is saying that she expects there will be elections. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the prospect she may be wrong, but I'm able to accept the premise. Because what she says about upcoming elections is that we know they won't be decided legitimately. With even the first draft of the Voter Confidence Resolution (originally called No Confidence Resolution), on April 10, 2004, I was making the same predictive statement, that there would be no basis for confidence in the results of elections held under current conditions.
There is something a bit weird about predictions. Nobody reading these words would consider gazing into a crystal ball to be a legitimate means of news gathering. So how can a best-selling author, on a non-stop book tour, get away with making predictions? Consider that she is not making a guess. She is not even talking about the future. She is describing things that are already happening, but which many people just don't see. This too is one of the echoes described in End of America. You may know the expression "good Germans," referring to the dazed and confused populace that let Nazism rise to power. Sadly, yet predictably, many "good Americans" cannot or will not recognize fascism when they see it.
Come to think of it, I have made some other predictive statements, particularly about the economic and environmental crashes inevitably looming on the horizon. There simply is no argument to be made that our course on either front meets any definition of sustainable. Thus, this too is a prediction of the present. Many of us are certain the collapse has already begun. Here we are only talking about how long it will take and what degree of personal uncertainty must become the norm before what is now clearly visible to some becomes apparent to all.
I'm late to the show for commenting on the privileged impeachment resolution introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich a few weeks ago, when he attempted to force a floor vote in the House of Representatives. However, the stray notes I made at the time take us back to one more predictive statement:Republicans as a rule are obstructionist in this Congress. Yesterday they had many possible ways to obstruct, any of which would alter the course away from the only thing worth describing as a goal, which is a successful vote to impeach.
With a few weeks gone by now, I don't really see that Kucinich's welcome bravado did anything to shift control of the impeachment issue. Worth noting, though, is this statement by New Hampshire State Representative Betty Hall. While I don't consider her endorsement of Kucinich's presidential candidacy to be too relevant, she goes much further by introducing her own impeachment resolution in the NH House.
Republicans portray themselves as victims, even as they bully the world. To prolong impeachment discussions, inwardly believing they are benign, creates a new, manageable internal threat. As Wolf notes in End of America, fascist dictators always evoke threats, both internal and external.
In this year's Reflections on Independence (Vol. 5), I pointed out that there is no precedent for expecting this admin to allow itself to be held accountable. It will never allow impeachment to proceed through all its machinations. However, whatever method of preempting impeachment one may imagine, it will not be unleashed until deemed necessary or opportunistically ideal. By prolonging and managing the pace of the impeachment discussion the admin increases its control over when that point of perceived necessity arrives.
At least two things are significant about this. First, while it may take a few months, NH law guarantees this resolution will get a full floor vote - it cannot be killed in committee. The other important part of this development is that Hall's resolution was drafted primarily by Paul Lehto, election protection attorney, co-founder of psephos-us.org, and the author of the Foreword to my book, We Do Not Consent (free .pdf download). The genius Lehto displays here is connecting the necessity of impeachment with the absolute destruction of legitimate elections. The final paragraph of the resolution:That, for directly harming the rights and manner of suffrage, for suffering to make them secret and unknowable, for instituting debates and doubts about the true nature of elections, all against the will and consent of local voters affected, and forced through threats of litigation, the actions of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to do the opposite of securing and guaranteeing the right of the people to alter or abolish their government, being a violation of an inalienable right, and an immediate threat to Liberty, is good cause for impeachment to be immediately granted.
Of the dozens if not hundreds of good causes for impeachment, this one may be the oldest chronologically if we go back to November and December 2000.
One last thing I've been meaning to tell you. A few weeks ago there were demonstrations of the US-approved torture tactic called waterboarding. This YouTube video was filmed in front of a Justice Department building, and this footage was taken by Code Pink members confronting CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein in front of CNN studios in D.C. This could only be done with volunteers willing to endure the pain and risk of death. It is totally surreal. Imagine you're a cop. On an ordinary day you might observe a group carrying signs and singing songs ("mostly say hooray for our side!"). You might see people lay down in the street for a "die-in." But what do you do when you see somebody conducting waterboarding, even if on a willing subject?
Can an ordinary beat cop bring you up on war crimes charges?
How does the sacrifice of allowing oneself to be waterboarded compare to the sacrifice of being arrested for torture, charges exactly applicable to Bush, Cheney, etc.
Is a demonstration of torture, even if on a willing victim, consistent with the principles of non-violence? I don't have an answer for this but imagine it could be quite debatable. Comments welcome.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/11/some-things-ive-been-meaning-to-tell.html
Labels: Betty Hall, Code Pink, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Dennis Kucinich, End of America, impeachment, Jon Perkins, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, Paul Lehto, Shock Doctrine, waterboarding
Monday, July 02, 2007
Reflections on Independence, Volume 5
July 4, 2007 - This is the fifth installment in my annual Reflections on Independence series. My mind is liable to seize when considering how far down the slippery slope we've slid since the first of these essays. Yet it is heartening to look back five years to my first call for impeachment and revolution, and to realize how many millions more have spoken out similarly since then.
There may be nothing redeeming about those who have hijacked America, but if nothing else, we can laud them for being so remarkably similar to those overthrown in the first American Revolution. This national holiday of ours has created for me a tradition of reading again those immortal words that speak of our unalienable rights, and submit facts for a candid world to consider abuses, injuries and usurpations endured because "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
The Declaration of Independence is the master change manual. It notes that it may be human nature to endure suffering, and that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." And yet it defines not only "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish" their government, but indeed their "duty" to do so when government fails to secure our unalienable rights and derive its "just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
I encourage you to refresh yourself on the Declaration, which is pasted at the end of this essay for your convenience. It could have been written yesterday, and yet if it had been, we certainly wouldn't hear about it on the news, unless the likes of Bill O'Reilly was cutting off your microphone and calling you a traitor. Proving our point much, Bill?
What do these historical references mean to you, or to any of us in the 21st century? I encourage you to consider publishing your own Reflections on Independence. This year as I approach this essay I find myself full of questions.
Who will liberate Iraq from its current occupiers?
Who will liberate America?
Why does any room full of Americans reciting the Pledge of Allegiance sound *exactly* like the Borg on Star Trek?
What do you call a person whose allegiance to a man comes before loyalty to the nation? This one is not rhetorical. We've cheered the parade of recently resigned whistleblowers, but I haven't noticed anyone booing the Secret Service as traitors. Can their job be considered honorable when it enables the behavior of war criminals? How would Nuremburg or Geneva look upon these enablers, should they ever be held to account?
Why are Bush and Cheney not the least bit worried about impeachment? For starters, Speaker Pelosi took the matter off the table, effectively telling them "don't worry about it." Why would she do this when these men have admitted and brazenly boasted with impunity about their high crimes and misdemeanors? Could it be because animals are most dangerous when wounded and/or cornered?
Is it realistic to think that Bush and Cheney will even stand for the Senate trial, stand for being held accountable? Think about their track record of avoiding accountability. Can we really believe that IF (big IF) Congress finally grows a spine, war criminals will submit to their judgment? This would be the first and only time they would have allowed themselves to be held accountable. And if countless other examples hadn't previously convinced you, don't the recent unitary executive directives make clear once and for all that they do not intend to yield power?
There really isn't any question that impeachment is appropriate and long overdue, it just won't be allowed to happen. I truly hope I'm wrong about that. But after presenting a plan for not leaving office, can we really doubt, if cornered, they will create the emergency context needed? When do We the People act like all bets are off? How many times will we say about these people, "I can't fucking believe it!" before we acknowledge that "they'll never do THAT" is no longer a reasonable assumption? This is the most dangerous potential of trapped rats. This is not only why impeachment won't work, if it is pursued, it also may be the private fear of many in Congress who refuse to act. Is it really out there to suggest that members of Congress may be just as afraid of what is happening as the rest of us are? Can fear sometimes lead to inaction?
What is the most insidious ramification of the military being intentionally stretched too thin? The military is unavailable to respond to an emergency at home. That is devastating in the context of a natural disaster. But what about when martial law comes? It won't be our official military that enforces this, it will be mercenaries. Halliburton and Blackwater will be the occupiers of America, overseeing a network of domestic concentration camps already built. Our military, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, will not be here to do so. The media, of course, will portray a different reality that will instead reinforce the okayness of the concentration camps and validate the authority of the hired guns, all while our military overseas supposedly, paradoxically, fights for our freedom.
What is freedom, now? What is independence, now? A few thoughts...
Independence is...growing food.
Independence is...walking and pedaling.
Independence is...local decision-making.
Independence is...the power of the sun and wind.
Independence is...knowing that a majority of the government cannot act against the will or the interest of the majority of We the People.
The federal and state governments are directly harming We the People. Only local government remains as a potential means for seeking redress of grievances. Like all layers of government, local City Councilmembers and County Supervisors swear the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Can we then consider it a moment of accountability to begin judging whether our local governments are upholding their oaths? And if, sadly, it can be confirmed that no layers of government are willing to protect the citizenry and the rule of law, is there any other choice then but for We the People to alter or abolish the government, as is our duty and unalienable right?
With each passing year, parallels between our own present circumstances and the grievances in the Declaration of Independence become more obvious. Not everyone was ready to see it five years ago. The vast majority of the country--far, far more than the media lets on, of course--has awakened. The response is not merely to turn support away from failed policies of deceitful war criminals. The sleeping giant that has been American public opinion is coming to terms with what is at stake.
Wherever you are, you don't have to look too far to find a community that has called for impeachment or for repeal of the Patriot Act or for the return of their National Guardsmen and an end to war. This is how it begins. In my view, citizens targeting Congress with their demands are asking a leopard to change its spots. In the first two installments of this series I concluded by saying:
"Consider your town, county, state and country. At what level does the group decision-making no longer reflect the greater good? Set your sights there and work to take control."
I think we've answered that question by now and the advice still stands. Wherever local government is cooperating with illegitimate and abusive powers wielded at the state and federal level, we must compel it to stop and engage in municipal civil disobedience. And if it will not, this is the level at which we take over, at which we alter or abolish. Like any successful revolution, this must occur from the ground up, from local to regional. You don't have to be an anarchist to subscribe to this plan. Just a good old fashioned conservative worshipper of American history.
Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!
* * *
Read past installments:
Reflections On Independence 2002
Reflections On Independence 2003
Reflections On Independence 2005
Reflections On Independence 2006
* * *
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/deceng.htm
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/07/reflections-on-independence-volume-5.html
Labels: Declaration of Independence, impeachment, peaceful revolution, Reflections on Independence
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Who Does Not Consent?
As noted briefly in Sunday's Eureka Reporter, there was an event called "We Do Not Consent" held on the Humboldt State University campus Monday night. One of the HSU student organizers did a good job of editing together some BBC and other news footage with some music and spoken word over it. He projected it onto a big movie screen. It was intensely somber and perhaps not the best way to begin the event. The Raging Grannies sang a few songs after that which changed the mood some.
There were a few speakers at this point with an audience of about 35 people. I didn't catch the name of the first speaker but I got the feeling she might be on the HSU faculty. She was promoting "shave your head for peace" and had shears for anyone ready to show solidarity. Larry Hourany then discussed the imperative of impeachment, apparently unaware that less than 24 hours later Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) would file articles of impeachment (.pdf) against Cheney. Robin spoke next. He has no computer access but passed out photocopies of a very detailed hand-written chart showing a comparison of 20 positions taken or not taken by 10 different war related bills in Congress.
I was the last speaker (listen - mp3) in front of the "audience." When I finished we moved into one big circle and kept the dialog going until 10pm. I tried to emphasize that We Do Not Consent is a great message and to make it work I suggest we identify ways to actually withdraw our consent. A student in the front muttered "passive consent" and I knew it was a phrase I would remember and use. To everything we simply accept we are giving passive consent. When we say We Do Not Consent it has to mean THIS IS NOT HAPPENING UNLESS WE SAY IT IS. We talked about preventing candidates from taking office after a bogus election, tax resistance, boycotting businesses that advertise on TV, and community currency. My aim was not to say these are the things we must do, but rather to offer an approach to choosing smart actions. I encouraged everyone to bring these things up for discussion in small groups. Later, one of the students in the circle thanked me specifically for that.
Throughout the time in the circle people brought up many different feelings and issues. There wasn't a real moderator or facilitator so the dialog didn't stay very focused. I heard a lot of frustration at wanting to do whatever would work but not knowing what that would be. Perhaps that is what made this group receptive to my suggestions, which also included using language from the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as much as possible, and also speaking in terms of the oath of office taken by all elected officials to protect and defend the Constitution. We need to make it politically untenable to support the status quo. I mean, who will stand up and say they DO consent to secret vote counting or torture or jail without charges at the whim of one man? Let's not allow anybody to maintain that indefensible position by going unchallenged.
I had another idea hours after the event, which is a video project showing snippets of maybe 5 to 15 seconds with one person after another saying "We Do Not Consent." Perhaps there could be different sequences that speak to different issues. Also, a website could show this ever growing collection of people speaking out. Activists everywhere could copy this and we could collectively build a massive voice for a unified message. As we identify and engage various means of withdrawing Consent and withholding cooperation, people will be emboldened to participate by realizing how many people are standing together.
There will be a rally this Saturday at the Eureka Courthouse starting at noon. I'll be speaking again, so come say hello.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/04/who-does-not-consent.html
Labels: HSU, impeachment, public speaking
