Bush Shows His True Colors At Last ... (Told Ya So)
By MG William A. Flatt
Since George W. Bush was elected (some say selected) President, many people of conservative bent were to be heard breathing sighs of relief. Not so, I said, warning patriots not to relax. I foretold of a not so kinder, gentler Bush administration (all 8 years) that would be more destructive to the Constitution than anything the Clintons ever dreamed of doing.
I was scoffed at. I was accused of going soft. I was even labeled by some as a (gasp!) liberal, for having the temerity to suggest that Dubya wasn't our political messiah. Well, to the naysayers, I must regretfully give you your comeuppance and report on the latest from the District of Criminals.
Doug Thompson, editor of Capitol Hill Blue, has broken the story of Bush's overt repudiation of the Constitution. Three White House staffers confirmed the story to Thompson, who's known for having scooped Matt Drudge on the Clinton/ Lewinsky story. Unfortunately, the climate of fear is so chilling at 1600 Pennsylvania, that these staffers did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation. Perhaps they believe that Bush would have them disappeared to a remote part of the world for 'sanctions' involving 'extreme prejudice'. Perhaps they have just cause to be concerned. The IMC archived news page features news clips that have confirmed the Bush administration's use of kidnapping, torture, concentration camps, murder, and worse things (if you can imagine such evils) in faraway overseas places.
Here's what happened: Late last month, Republican congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President Bush and discuss the renewal of the controversial USA Patriot Act. (Several provisions of the act, passed in the shock following 9/11 attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.)
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the most onerous and controversial provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but their counsel fell on deaf ears.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
No, Mr. President, it's not a blankety-blank 'piece of paper'. It's the Law of the Land, and since you have demonstrated in words as well as deeds your total lack of respect for the supreme law of our nation, I will no longer call you by your job title. No, that would be an insult to the dignity of the office. I hereby dub Dubya as "King George the 43rd".
Bush apologists probably wish he hadn’t said: “If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator.”
I've actually obtained real footage of this off-the-cuff remark, which was intended as an apparent joke among the people present. However, it gives insights into the autocratic manner in which Bush is running the country.
I seem to recall a bunch of brave Christian Americans who took up arms, arms that incidentally were state-of-the-art military hardware for that age; and they went forth to depose the tyrant king and establish liberty. They waged a violent, necessary revolution to overthrow not only a despot, but an entire system that had been built up to financially enslave an entire people.
Oh, how we have come full circle.
Now, having said that, I know that if the founders were alive today, they would no doubt begin another American Revolution to get rid of King George and all of his lackeys... assuming that they didn't get placed in a camp like Guantanamo. Even Dubya isn't so stupid as to not realize what the founders would do.
To steal a paraphrase from the Beatles, you're "talking 'bout my Constitution"... so don't mess with it! (That means 'hands off'.)
Ok, now, for all of you law-enforcement types out there. When is is lawful to take up arms against your own government? Answer? When it abandons the rule of law and wars against the document you swore to uphold and defend when you were commissioned and sent forth to 'go get the bad guys'. When your boss breaks the law, he stops being your boss. He should be your prisoner, then brought before a judge for arraignment.
For all you soldiers out there. Ditto on the last question, ditto on the last answer. Although the military does not perform policing duties, within the UCMJ there is still a process for the detention and courts-martial of superior officers who violate the Constitution, and engage in illegal acts. The Katrina aftermath comes to mind; whether you should be ordered to confiscate firearms or impose martial law, you have a duty to refuse an illegal order. Initiating 'combat operations' on law-abiding citizens in the middle of a disaster area would qualify as such an illegal order.
Many of us have heard about the national guard commander that would 'shoot the man who gives such an order', and the man who ordered that man, and so on. I would like to believe that should be the case. Unfortunately, we know that in the Twentynine Palms Survey, that at least 20 percent of our troops (maybe as many as 1/3rd) would open fire on peaceable Americans who would refuse to obey illegal orders. Those are the sort of soldiers and police that Bush is counting on to demonstrate to the people that the Constitution is 'just a piece of paper' now, having no effect in the restraint of government or the guarantee of fundamental and inalienable Rights. Those are the sorts who were all too happy to disarm the law-abiding victims of a major natural catastrophe.
To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in a modern context; "Any president whose every act so markedly imitates the character of a tyrant... is unfit to govern a free people."
Does anyone still seriously entertain the notion that Bush is a Christian or a friend of the Constitution? And if not, then, when will America stop riding the insane merry-go-round of alternating between Democrats and Republicans? Like the Soviet Union's leadership, they are opposite sides of the same fake coin, and we should reject it altogether. Oh, don't worry... if you want to vote a straight ticket, there are parties like the Libertarians, and the Constitution Party. I'm willing to bet no one in those organizations thinks that the Constitution is 'just a g--damned piece of paper'.
No, King George is the one who is damned, God will see to that. Damn him all the way to Hell, where his black heart was spawned. In the meantime, I'll settle for impeachment.
