|
|
Franklin D. Roosevelt promised this country
“freedom from fear.” In keeping with most of his grandiose
pronouncements, he spoke with a forked tongue. (As General Douglas MacArthur
reputedly quipped, Roosevelt never told the truth if a lie would suffice.) In
any event, today Americans live in a nation beset by ever-expanding fear and
ever-contracting freedom. This is because all too many of them have forgotten
that freedom from fear requires the wit to identify, and especially the
courage to eliminate, the causes of fear—through their own exercise of
their constitutional freedoms.
To
be sure, there are possible reasons for fear: false-flag
“terrorist” strikes, which could lead to attempts to impose
“martial law” and to invoke new “emergency powers,”
which could result in the suspension of elections and the setting up of a
dictatorship, which could bring about the submersion of the United States in
a North American Union, to name a few. Nonetheless, these possibilities,
although real, are quite often exaggerated:
- Any false-flag, or even an actual,
“terrorist” strike will necessarily be on a small scale,
compared to the massive fire-bombings of real warfare, such as
incinerated Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and other great cities. A country
as large, wealthy, and well-organized as the United States will not
be—or at least ought not to be—driven into socio-political
chaos by anything less horrific than death and destruction on or beyond
that level.
- Outside of theaters of actual military combat,
or perhaps areas suffering from the massive devastation of natural
disasters or swept by virulent epidemics, so-called “martial
law” cannot legally come into play unless all of the courts, both
of the States and of the General Government, are closed and cannot
conduct their normal business—which is at least implausible, if
not impossible to imagine.
- Absent some utterly catastrophic event that
prostrates the entire country, elections can be held everywhere outside
of the affected areas, and maybe even there. And where elections cannot
be held, or are not scheduled to be held in the near term, the States
can fill any voids in Congress that result from a
“terrorist” strike; and then a reconstructed Congress can
fill any voids in the Executive Branch; and then those two Branches can
fill any voids in the courts of the United States—all in the
regular course of law. See U.S. Const., Article I, § 2, cl. 4
(House of Representatives); Amendment XVII, 2 (Senate); Article II,
§ 1, cl. 5, Amendment XX, §§ 3 and 4, and Amendment XXV
(President and Vice President); and Article I, § 8, cl. 9, Article
II, § 2, cl. 2, and Article III, § 1 (courts).
- The Constitution itself absolutely removes Mr.
Bush and Mr. Cheney from office on 20 January 2009, no matter what
happens theretofore. See Article II, § 1, cl. 1, and Amendment XX,
§ 1. No legal way exists for them to continue in office, let alone
to assume the positions of “dictators,”
“deciders,” or even squatters in the White House, simply
because some supposed “emergency” has occurred. After high
noon on 20 January 2009, they will enjoy no more power in the General
Government than any two bag-women plucked randomly off the streets of
New York City.
- The North American Union is patently
unconstitutional. See my commentary, “ Will the North American
Union Be American Patriots’ Last Stand?” It is also probably
unworkable, for cultural and social, as well as political and economic,
reasons. In fictive literature, the genius of Dr. Victor Frankenstein
could cobble together a working monster from parts of various cadavers.
But, in the real world, the muddle-headed kakistocracies that now
temporarily misrule the United States, Canada, and Mexico will require
extensive remedial studies in political anatomy before they can hope to
emulate his experiment. (Which,
one should recall, failed horribly.)
Yet
the Internet is replete with dire prognostications that these and other
disasters are about to descend upon the United States—and Americans can
do next to nothing to forefend them. As these oracles proclaim the future, we
are all doomed, doomed, doomed!
Beyond
doubt, a dark purpose lurks behind not a few of these prophecies. Experts in
disinformation and agents provocateurs spread mindless fear in order to
impede Americans’ critical reasoning and thereby to foster political
panic and self-destructive behavior. They attempt to condition people to
accept the ruination, even disappearance, of their country as inevitable, if
not imminent, and so to remain passive and apathetic, acquiescing in their
victimization, because supposedly “nothing can be done.” They
even try to convince Americans that, notwithstanding Representative Ron
Paul’s candidacy, they have no choice but to saddle some swaybacked
politician from the Republican or Democratic stables as President in 2008.
But
even many of the honest, patriotic commentators who voice justifiable,
articulate concerns about these possibilities are spinning their wheels
unproductively. To too great a degree, they are merely preaching to the
choir:
- Their audiences already realize that the
official story of 9/11 is, to some extent, a legend—whether there
was official omission, or even commission, something is not as it is
being represented to be.
- Their audiences already recognize that
continued, let alone expanded, conflict in the Middle East will be, not
merely impolitic, but also illegal, immoral, and just plain
stupid—that it will gut and demoralize the Armed Forces, push this
country closer and closer to bankruptcy, turn every decent individual in
the whole world against the United States, and still leave the region
more chaotic and dangerous than it is now.
- Their audiences already oppose the
“globalist” economic policies that are destroying
America’s manufacturing base and slashing the living-standards of
her middle class.
- Their audiences already insist that the General
Government (and the States, too) do everything possible to repel the
invasion of illegal immigrants sweeping into this country.
- Their audiences already want to dismantle the
National police state being set up in the Disgrace of Columbia, and to
prevent anything like it from ever being constructed again. And,
- Their audiences already know that the late
Governor George Wallace wildly overvalued the situation when he observed
that there is not “a dime’s worth of
difference”—even in base-metallic coinage—between the
Republican and Democratic Parties.
So,
these commentators are doing a commendable job in reporting the facts; and
their presentations are being understood.
Nevertheless,
although exposure of evil and excoriation of evildoers are necessary, they
are not sufficient. Remedial and protective actions are also wanted. Past
acts of evil must be punished. Present acts of evil must be thwarted. And
future acts of evil must be deterred. As to these requirements, though, all
too many patriotic commentators are not providing effective leadership. They
are accurately describing the disease, but not adequately (if at all)
prescribing the remedy—telling Americans what is wrong with their
country, but not directing them to what can be done, and should be done, and
would be effective if done.
What
can not or will not be done should be obvious.
First,
forget the removal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney by
“Impeachment for, and Conviction of, * * * high Crimes and
Misdemeanors”, as the Constitution provides in Article II, § 4. To
be sure, if implemented this procedure would prevent any future wrongdoing by
these particular individuals under color of those particular offices. But
that would neither solve, nor even allay, the underlying
problem—because, whatever their personal demerits, Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney are merely symptoms, not sources, of America’s present
difficulties. They are not the Strombolis of this country’s political
marionette show, but only the Pinocchios. Even were they removed by
impeachment and conviction, greedy and anti-constitutional special-interest
groups, both domestic and foreign, would continue to pull the top-level
politicians’ strings.
America
is in the grip of a kakistocracy—misrule by the very worst people: the
avaricious, the ambitious, the amoral. And America is in the grip of
tyranny—because such public officials concern themselves primarily with
the advancement of special interests, rather than with promotion of the
general welfare. This sorry state of affairs, however, did not come to pass
by accident. It is not a matter of a few egregiously bad individuals who
somehow, against all odds, wormed their ways into public office.
No—what prevails now is not the exception, but the rule. It is the
manifestation of a veritable structure, even a system, of political (and many
other kinds of) evil that has been superimposed on this country. So, what
benefit would be achieved by removing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office?
That, in the short term prior to January of 2009, they would be replaced by Nancy
Pelosi as President and whomever she arranged to assume the position of Vice
President?! Or that, in the long term after January of 2009, they would be
replaced by Hilarity Clinton and her no less ridiculous running-mate?!
Besides,
the Democratic Party does not want to impeach Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. For
people as fanatically partisan as the Democrats, such reluctance appears
remarkable—because, with Bush and Cheney gone, Pelosi would become
President by operation of law; and the Democratic Party would control both
Congress and the Executive Branch going into the 2008 national elections. Why
would the Democrats not do everything they could to achieve that result?
One
story the Democrats have put out for public consumption is that “they
don’t have the votes” in the House, the Senate, or both. But why
not? What more, or worse, misbehavior on the Administration’s part
could possibly be required? Another story is that the Democrats want to let
the Republicans stew in the Administration’s wrongdoing and incompetence,
in order to encourage more chaos and create more public antipathy, and
thereby increase the magnitude of the Democrats’ landslide in 2008. But
why would they not anticipate an even greater landslide if they had already
removed Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in disgrace, and in the process had
discredited the Republican Party as a racketeering enterprise, in nationally
televised trials in the Senate?
Well,
modern politics are not the province of accidents, mysteries, or even really
difficult questions. The foundation of the Democrats’ reluctance is
that, in order to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, the Democrats would have
to declare the Administration’s actions—such as the incursion
into Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and so on—to
be “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. And “High Crimes and
Misdemeanors”, not simply because those acts are impolitic or
imprudent, but because they are unconstitutional. And if those acts are
unconstitutional—and intentionally so, rather than merely the products
of thoughtless negligence—then they are also criminal. See Title 18,
United States Code, §§ 241 and 241. Thus, the slippery slope leads
rather quickly to a black hole.
This
is a possibility the Constitution itself foresees in Article I, § 3, cl.
7, but which the Congressional Democrats do not want to face, let alone to
thrust upon the public’s attention, for at least three reasons:
(i)
They cannot condemn the Administration in these
particulars without also condemning themselves, many of them having voted for
that legislation (and even now continuing to vote for yet more legislation of
that ilk) under color of “the war on terrorism.”
(ii)
Their public protestations notwithstanding, they want these
statutes—unconstitutional as they may be—to remain on the books,
so that the anticipated Democratic Administration can employ them after
January of 2009. And,
(iii)
The ulterior moving parties in the enactment of many of those statutes, and
the people who expect to benefit most from their use in the future, are
certain special-interest groups that the Democrats do not dare to expose,
cross, or refuse to favor.
Second,
forget the 2008 national elections. Even if the Democratic Party prevails in
a landslide, in 2009 and thereafter nothing but the names will change (and
not to protect the innocent, either). Will a new Democratic
“Decider” (or “Decidetrix”) be any more of a
constitutionalist, or any less of a global fascist, than his (or her)
Republican predecessor? Will the relative undesirability of the new, versus
the old, Administration matter? For will not the same money-grubbing,
vicious, violence-prone, and irremediably anti-American special-interest
groups, both domestic and foreign, still control the flows of campaign
contributions—still salt their operatives throughout Congress, the
Executive Branch, and the most important agencies of the General
Government—still populate the leading private think tanks that generate
“policy”—still dominate the big mass media—in sum,
still have a strangulating grip on the throat of America’s political
process?
Edwin
Vieira
|
|
