Archive for the ‘Executive Orders’ Category

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution of the United States

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Advertisements

Please take the time to watch these videos – it’s what’s necessary for all of this to change.

Spread The Word

We do not think of ourselves as conspiracy theorists – but we do have to admit that, when you add them up, there are WAY too many “coincidences” for us not to increase our questions. Here’s one man’s take on it:

I don’t think I have seen such an amount of strange goings at the same time in a very long time; maybe never. The last time this happened was 9/11 and I didn’t see any of that until afterwards.

There’s this stranger than fiction aspect to the nukes in flight. Here’s an excellent article where you can inform yourself if you aren’t informed yet http://freeworldsurvey.blogspot.com/2007/09/6-nukes-fly-over-us-big-problems-with.html here’s the nukes http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=3548 does any of this seem strange to you? I’ll tell you what looks strange to me, grounding entire air defense squadrons of fighters on the 14th of the month when it is bombers that were involved. Read the first link above and you’ll be in the picture. The other thing is how did that squadron commander get control of those nukes? There are all of these fail-safes and protocols in place so; who waved them through? Who waved them through? Surely someone would have been named. Surely this is the sort of thing the press would be right on top of… surely. “Don’t call me Shirley.”

And then, like a jack in the box, up comes the animated corpse of the long dead Bin Laden in a video that stops for minutes at a time while the voiceover continues unimpeded. What you are to take away from this is that when Bin Laden pops up it means another terror attack is about to happen. Right on cue, the head of the CIA announces that Al Qaeda is planning another terror attack http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14523542&vsv=SHGTslot2

Meanwhile the Fed is pumping money into the system like no tomorrow because of an immense financial crisis that isn’t being discussed at the level it really exists at and Israeli fighter jets are violating airspaces all over the Middle East and America and ‘unnamed allies’ are all upset with El Baradei and there’s booga-booga here and booga-booga there. It really feels like the carnival has come to town. The carnival has come to town folks and the freak show is the big attraction.

I could put so many links in here that there wouldn’t be an article when I was done. Maybe you should head over the http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ and http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/ and inform yourself. Look over what’s been showing up in the last couple of weeks and then see what your reasonable mind makes of all the happenings and signs.

Shortly before all of this the History Channel did a smear job on the 9/11 truth movement and that is because no one with a brain in their head believes the official version any more. You can see who owns what in the media here http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.php and then you can speculate on why whoever owns the History Channel felt that they needed to do a big disinfo special at this time. Then you might remind yourself that fascism occurs when corporations control the government. Finally you can check out this 3 part rebuttal of the History Channel’s hit piece here http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-08-29i and here http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-08-30i and here http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-09-04i

Okay, that’s it for the links. Have you checked out some of what is available for you here? Have you looked at the two major sites that I included which give a comprehensive view of all the news the mass media has spun or ignored these last weeks? Then you should be up to speed.

Let’s add to the whole picture the strange legislation that put the country solely into the hands of lil’ Bush should anything go wrong enough- according to him- to implement it. This happened around May 8th. Think about what happened to Posse Comitatus and all the other weird things, from Ashcroft’s sickbed to grabbing your property if the government feels you are supporting terror and… ask… yourself… why all of these things; all of the things I have mentioned so far and what is presented in all of the links has been happening. Remember too that Bush only does what he is told.

Is it all coincidence? Is it the result of the workings of deep and penetrating intellects with big hearts who are trying to protect all of us from an army of people who hate your freedom? Is it the natural out-workings of the collective mathematics of life? More likely it is none of the above.

This blog has been at pains to point out the psychopathic players behind all the smoke and mirrors. I don’t think that needs to be done one more time. This blog has mentioned a number of times, what an ordinary citizen can do; collectively strike in such a way that the money and product stops flowing. I don’t expect the ordinary citizen to do anything about any of this until they are forced to and the good news and the bad news is that I suspect that’s going to happen. I suspect you will find yourself in this position.

Trends are indicators, folks. If you watch trends you can see patterns. Life is composed of trends and the more successful among us are very mindful of them. Various organized groups of the successful often engineer the very trends they profit from. Depending on the industry they are a part of depends on the trends they engineer or manipulate. Observing the passage of trends can have a lot to do with your level of comfort and often whether you survive at all.

Right now, booga-booga and strange unexplained events have become trends. Those who profits off of the blood- sweat and tears of the rank and file know that there are certain primal instincts that you can always appeal to. You can generate a collective response from the public by inflaming desire or instilling fear. It’s a little more complex but mostly it has to do with activating people’s appetites or amplifying their fears.

Are you hungry yet? Are you scared? Most of you aren’t even thinking about any of this. Most of you are going along with the program the way sheep go along with the program until the day they become lamb chops; that’s part of the program too. Is there any truth to the fact that that bomber left with six nukes and arrived with five? I just put that in there because I love how it makes the rah-rah lemmings scream with outrage. People are talking about this though. People are saying there are weird things happening with Fosset’s missing plane and that unheimlich ‘flight of the nukes’.

I don’t know who did what, when. I don’t know the identity of “the man who squats behind the man that works the soft machine.” There are a lot of things that I don’t know and I’m happy to admit that. We don’t do advertising here. We don’t answer to a paycheck or write in hope of one. We just wonder a lot and we hope to make you wonder too. We would like you to be more informed. You might not wind up knowing any more than we do but at least you’d be wondering what the Hell is going on and maybe the more we all wonder, the more the smoke and mirrors will look exactly like smoke and mirrors.

Whatever is going on it is beginning to ratchet up. There’s an increase of tension and excitement. It’s kind of like getting to that part of the film where something is about to happen. If nothing happens you feel let down. Well, hopefully nothing does happen in this film. I would prefer that.

We need to wonder more and we need to ask more questions. We need to be less satisfied with the bullshit we are being fed. We need to stop being a nation of people that are glad to eat shit as long as they serve it to us warm. I don’t expect you to do much now. I hope you will act when the time comes and I hope the time never comes. For the moment it looks like the Boogeyman has shown up well before Halloween. Keep thinking; keep wondering and why not start being better informed?

From Smoking Mirrors

We will not be posting Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007. We are participating in the STRIKE FOR PEACE.

If you’ve had enough, you need to say “When.” Say-when.org

Washington rhetoric about the war raises many questions.

By Rob Elder

This article originally appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on Wednesday, May 5, 2004.

In war, he who rules the rhetoric controls the high ground.

Take the current term for people we are fighting in Iraq. Previously, Washington officials called them Saddam sympathizers and foreign terrorists. But most are Iraqis and many never liked Saddam. So now they’re “insurgents.”

If you ask Google for a definition of insurgent, you get “a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions).”

That’s not so bad. But my Random House Thesaurus associates insurgent with synonyms including rebel, traitor, turncoat, deserter, anarchist, dissenter, malcontent, maverick and upstart.

Those sound like bad guys to me. But if the Iraqis are the insurgents, how come we’re the ones shooting up their country and trying to get them to adopt our kind of government?

Much of the rhetoric about Iraq raises questions. President Bush keeps saying Iraqis want freedom. But freedom from what? And to do what?

Might the residents of Baghdad want freedom from Paul Bremer, the American running the occupation government? It’s pretty clear that people who live in Al-Fallujah want freedom from the U.S. Marines. And I’d guess a lot of Marines would love to be free of a war that makes our reasons for having fought in Vietnam seem clear and straightforward, by comparison.

The rhetoric Washington applies to the war against terrorism raises even more questions. This is important, because labeling it as a war has given the president and other parts of the federal government powers they would not have if this were an international police action.

Can the government arrest American citizens and hold them without charges in a military prison? Yes, the administration argued last week before the Supreme Court, because this is wartime.

The court will decide, but meanwhile we’re left to wonder what it would mean to win or lose this war. Despite his use of wartime rhetoric, the president hasn’t spelled out anything about defeat or victory.

Surely victory can’t be defined as wiping out every terrorist everywhere, or, by definition, we can’t win. Avoiding more attacks like 9/11 is certainly part of what we mean by winning the war; so is keeping known terrorists on the run. But is the war in Iraq synonymous with the war on terrorism? Washington isn’t even consistent about what it means to win in Iraq.

It’s easier to talk about what it would mean to lose the war on terrorism.

Suffering more major attacks on Americans at home or abroad would be part of that, but not just in the obvious sense of lost lives and real estate. Terrorists win this war if they frighten us into becoming more like them: ruthless people with no regard for law.

Writing in the New York Times Magazine May 2, Michael Ignatieff argues we could lose this war in several ways. One would be to empower the president, the CIA and other parts of the government to act secretly and arbitrarily, without restraint of law.

And that brings us back to rhetoric. In times of peril, it is particularly important for America’s leaders to be clear and frank. Instead, President Bush has said almost nothing about the sacrifices Americans may have to make in the war on terrorism. The Pentagon hasn’t even wanted Americans to see the flag-draped coffins of dead Americans returning from Iraq.

The president keeps talking about freedom. In fact, Americans forfeit precious freedoms in wartime, for practical reasons. Men and women in the military reserves and National Guard have temporarily lost the freedom to pursue their careers and be with their families. They and career military people alike are not free to put themselves out of harm’s way. Before this war is over, Americans in general may give up some of the civil liberties we take for granted.

But if in the process we give up the rule of law and our all-important checks and balances, we lose.

“Regulating a war on terror with ethical rules and democratic oversight is much harder than regulating traditional wars,” Ignatieff says. And I say a government that wants to keep ethical rules and democratic oversight must quit using euphemisms and empty generalities and talk clearly and frankly to the American people — even in an election year.

From the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics – Santa Clara University

 

Jim Kirwan – August 12, 2007

Our national silence confirms it -­ after only a few hundred years of a supposedly Democratic Republic, we have now chosen to become a Monarchy. However because of our reluctance to get-involved: most Americans have yet to concede that the presidency, presently, only exists as a fictional and strictly ceremonial image because that office was only one of the three parts that once jointly governed the United States…Congress has gagged itself and the courts remain mute, while this executive runs wild.

This new Monarchy is a reflection of the times in which we live, because he isn’t a single figure but a Frankenstein creature with two heads. Cheney-Bush the First is the title of this new Orwellian creation, which has just finished taking all power unto itself.

If you think that this goes too far; perhaps you might want to review some of what we have allowed to happen under Cheney-Bush the First. Spend five minutes and fourteen seconds on this video and think about what this means to your freedoms. (1)

There are some additional outrages that the clip doesn’t mention. The fact that Cheney-Bush the First has added well over a thousand signing statements to legislation passed by the congress: unilaterally nullifying the limitations set by the constitution on that office. His only choices were to sign or veto: but C-B-1 created a third path: he signs the laws but then declares that they do not apply to him.

He has also arrogated immunity to himself and his underlings, bear in mind that the White House has over 5,000 employees ­ who are now apparently also immune from either oversight or prosecution. Only a King could do this. Then there is the Office of the Attorney General of the United States: again someone who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution: except that the last two occupants have chosen loyalty to their leader over their duty to protect the people of the United States from a corrupt president and his gang of thugs that have claimed all power for themselves.

I had a dream about a massive national celebration. It was the Coronation of the King of America. The parade resembled Carnival and it was led through the cordoned-off streets of Washington D.C. by tanks escorted by a thousand motor-cycle cops in riot gear ­ there were no protestors within the camera’s view. Everything was draped in red-white and blue ­ flags were everywhere and the air was filled with balloons, and then a marching band appeared with AK-47’s strapped to their backs, proudly playing “Hail to the Chief.”

Immediately behind them a circus elephant, apparently drugged, was weaving up the boulevard amid an artificial fog that seemed to make everything surreal. Atop the elephant was a platform with oversize Tomahawk missiles supporting a huge crown of brilliant gold, and the whole platform swayed under the weight of the crown, with every drunken step of the beast.

Aboard the platform was an overweight Dick Cheney wearing only a necktie. There were numerous IV bottles ranged around him that swayed in the stagnant Washington air. Cheney wore a mask of himself, perhaps six feet high, that featured his trademarked sneer, and in his upraised pudgy fist he held the strings of his puppet The Decider: whose giant mask looked eerily like Alfred E. Newman, the comic-book version of “What me Worry.”

Bush was wearing his pilot’s uniform, but it was the banner above the crown that read “Mission Accomplished,” which seemed to rule the moment.

It was only then I noticed that Nancy Pelosi was attempting to lead the elephant in her scanty cheerleading costume with “08” upon her sweater. She was cheered by a number of other characters that all seemed eager to help. Rummy was there dressed as a US military version of Darth Vader, with Wolfowitz as Scissor-hands, and there were perhaps two hundred hooded prisoner’s that surrounded the elephant to protect it from any unexpected attacks by the crowd. These figures were chained together and controlled by some hidden weapon that shocked them, whenever they began to falter.

As the procession came abreast of my position, I noticed that behind the two-headed King was Condi Rice, in a gold lame full-length sheath, sitting on a handcuffed and gagged Colin Powell while she ate some grapes and waved to where she obviously thought the crowds might be ­ but the fog machine obscured her view.

The nightmare dissolved, but the thoughts about what all that might portend did not. Then I remembered that recent Bill Moyers’ Journal article that had explored a Monarchy and contrasted the current administration with others where Impeachment was raised.

“JOHN NICHOLS: I think that the war on terror, as defined by our president, is perpetual war. And I think that he has acted precisely as Madison feared. He has taken powers unto himself that were never intended to be in the executive. And, frankly, that when an executive uses them, in the way that this president has, you actually undermine the process of uniting the country and really focusing the country on the issues that need to be dealt with. Let’s be clear. If we had a president who was seeking to inspire us to take seriously the issues that are in play and to bring all the government together, he’d be consulting with Congress. He’d be working with Congress. And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things like invading Iraq.

JOHN NICHOLS: People don’t want to let this go. They do not accept Nancy Pelosi’s argument that impeachment is, quote/unquote, off the table. Because I guess maybe they’re glad she didn’t take some other part of the Constitution off the table like freedom of speech. But they also don’t accept the argument that, oh, well, there’s a presidential campaign going on. So let’s just hold our breath till Bush and Cheney get done.

When I go out across America, what I hear is something that’s really very refreshing and very hopeful about this country. An awfully lot of Americans understand what Thomas Jefferson understood. And that is that the election of a president does not make him a king for four years. That if a president sins against the Constitution– and does damage to the republic, the people have a right in an organic process to demand of their House of Representatives, the branch of government closest to the people, that it act to remove that president. And I think that sentiment is afoot in the land.

BILL MOYERS: Bruce, you talk about overreaching. What, in practical terms, do you mean by that?

BRUCE FEIN: It means asserting powers and claiming that there are no other branches that have the authority to question it. Take, for instance, the assertion that he’s made that when he is out to collect foreign intelligence, no other branch can tell him what to do. That means he can intercept your e-mails, your phone calls, open your regular mail, he can break and enter your home. He can even kidnap you, claiming I am seeking foreign intelligence and there’s no other branch Congress can’t say it’s illegal–judges can’t say this is illegal. I can do anything I want. That is overreaching. When he says that all of the world, all of the United States is a military battlefield because Osama bin Laden says he wants to kill us there, and I can then use the military to go into your homes and kill anyone there who I think is al-Qaeda or drop a rocket, that is overreaching. That is a claim even King George III didn’t make–

JOHN NICHOLS: Let me keep us on Cheney for a second here, because that is–

BILL MOYERS: You think Cheney should be subject to impeachment hearings?

JOHN NICHOLS: Without a doubt. Cheney is, for all practical purposes, the foreign policy president of the United States. There are many domestic policies in which George Bush really is the dominant player. But on foreign policy Dick Cheney has been calling the shots for six years and he continues to call the shots. Remember back in 2000, in the presidential debates, George Bush said America should be a humble country in the world, shouldn’t go about nation building. And Dick Cheney, in the vice-presidential debate, spent eight minutes talking about Iraq.

Now the fact of the matter is that on foreign policy, Dick Cheney believes that the executive branch should be supreme. He said this back to the days when he was in the House during Iran-Contra. He wrote the minority report saying Congress shouldn’t sanction the president in any way, President Reagan.

JOHN NICHOLS: And put these pieces together. If Cheney believes in this expansive power. You’ve got a– unique crisis, a unique problem because the vice-president of the United States believes that Congress shouldn’t even be a part of the foreign policy debate. And he is setting the foreign policy. I mean–

BILL MOYERS: The power of the purse-

BRUCE FEIN: –the power of the purse. That is an absolute power. And yet Congress shies from it. It was utilized during the Vietnam War, you may recall, in 1973. Congress said there’s no money to go and extend the war into Laos and Cambodia. And even President Nixon said okay. This was a president who at one time said, “If I do it, it’s legal.” So that it we do find Congress yielding the power to the executive branch. It’s the very puzzle that the founding fathers would have been stunned at. They worried most over the legislative branch in, you know, usurping powers of the other branches. And–

BILL MOYERS: Well, what you just said indicts the Congress more than you’re indicting George Bush and Dick Cheney.

BRUCE FEIN: In some sense, yes, because the founding fathers expected an executive to try to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch. And you’re right. They have basically renounced– walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check. It’s not an option. It’s an obligation when they take that oath to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I think the reason why this is. They do not have convictions about the importance of the Constitution. It’s what in politics you would call the scientific method of discovering political truths and of preventing excesses because you require through the processes of review and vetting one individual’s perception to be checked and– counterbalanced by another’s. And when you abandon that process, you abandon the ship of state basically and it’s going to capsize.” (2)

If we have a Republic, then we have constitutional methods to deal with illegality by the president and the vice-president. If we do not use those powers then the nation will lose them and we shall have a king instead of a president. The question asked by the video is still outstanding:

“When Will Americans Have Had Enough”!

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

1) When Will Americans Have Had Enough

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P682rGIhZwI&mode=related&search  

2) Impeachment the Conversation Continues

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

This provision (the 4th Amendment) speaks for itself. Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man’s house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion.” Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) US Supreme Court Justice 1833
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Joseph.Story.Quote.8610

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself, not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”Constitution of the United States Source: Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment, 1791 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Constitution.of.the.United.States.Quote.38E3

“The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985), U. S. Supreme Court Justice Source: Bartkus v. Illinois, 5 March 1961 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Potter.Stewart.Quote.4514

Let’s see how the current Supreme Court – favoring the Bush Administration – gets around this when the time comes.

by Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis

It is time to think about the “unthinkable.”

The Bush Administration has both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election.

The GOP strategy for another electoral theft in 2008 has taken clear shape, though we must assume there is much more we don’t know.

But we must also assume that if it appears to Team Bush/Cheney/Rove that the GOP will lose the 2008 election anyway (as it lost in Ohio 2006) we cannot ignore the possibility that they would simply cancel the election. Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention.

The real question is not how or when they might do it. It’s how, realistically, we can stop them.

In Florida 2000, Team Bush had a game plan involving a handful of tactics. With Jeb Bush in the governor’s mansion, the GOP used a combination of disenfranchisement, intimidation, faulty ballots, electronic voting fraud, a rigged vote count and an aborted recount, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.

A compliant Democrat (Al Gore) allowed the coup to be completed.

In Ohio 2004, the arsenal of dirty tricks exploded. Based in Columbus, we have documented more than a hundred different tactics used to steal the 20 electoral votes that gave Bush a second term. More are still surfacing. As a result of the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit (in which we are plaintiff and attorney) we have now been informed that 56 of the 88 counties in Ohio violated federal law by destroying election records, thus preventing a definitive historical recount.

As in 2000, a compliant Democrat (John Kerry) allowed the coup to proceed.

For 2008 we expect the list of vote theft maneuvers to escalate yet again. We are already witnessing a coordinated nationwide drive to destroy voter registration organizations and to disenfranchise millions of minority, poor and young voters.

This carefully choreographed campaign is complemented by the widespread use of electronic voting machines. As reported by the Government Accountability Office, Princeton University, the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and others, these machines can be easily used to flip an election. They were integral to stealing both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Efforts to make their source codes transparent, or to require a usable paper trail on a federal level, have thus far failed. A discriminatory Voter ID requirement may also serve as the gateway to a national identification card.

Overall, the GOP will have at its command even more weapons of election theft in 2008 than it did in Ohio 2004, which jumped exponentially from Florida 2000. The Rovian GOP is nothing if not tightly organized to do this with ruthless efficiency. Expect everything that was used these past two presidential elections to surface again in 2008 in far more states, with far more efficiency, and many new dirty tricks added in.

But in Ohio 2006, the GOP learned a hard lesson. Its candidate for governor was J. Kenneth Blackwell. The Secretary of State was the essential on-the-ground operative in the theft of Ohio 2004.

When he announced for governor, many Ohioans joked that “Ken Blackwell will never lose an election where he counts the votes.”

But lose he did….along with the GOP candidates for Secretary of State, Attorney-General and US Senate.

By our calculations, despite massive grassroots scrutiny, the Republicans stole in excess of 6% of the Ohio vote in 2006. But they still lost.

Why? Because they were so massively unpopular that even a 6% bump couldn’t save them. Outgoing Governor Bob Taft, who pled guilty to four misdemeanors while in office, left town with a 7% approval rating (that’s not a typo). Blackwell entered the last week of the campaign down 30% in some polls.

So while the GOP still had control of the electoral machinery here in 2006, the public tide against them was simply too great to hold back, even through the advanced art and science of modern Rovian election theft.

In traditional electoral terms, that may also be the case in 2008. Should things proceed as they are now, it’s hard to imagine any Republican candidate going into the election within striking distance. The potential variations are many, but the graffiti on the wall is clear.

What’s also clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.

Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn’t they?

The groundwork for dismissal of both the legislative and judicial branch has been carefully laid. The litany is well-known, but worth a very partial listing:

The continuation of the drug war, and the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act and other dictatorial laws prompted by the 9/11/2001 terror attacks, have decimated the Bill of Rights, and shredded the traditional American right to due process of law, freedom from official surveillance, arbitrary violence, and far more.

The current Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, has not backed away from his announcement to Congress that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The administration continues to act on the assumption that it can arrest anyone at any time and hold them without notification or trial for as long as it wants.

The establishment of the Homeland Security Agency has given it additional hardware to decimate the basic human rights of our citizenry. Under the guise of dealing with the “immigration problem,” large concentration camps are under construction around the US.

The administration has endorsed and is exercising its “right” to employ torture, contrary to the Eighth Amendment and to a wide range of international treaties, which Gonzales has labeled “quaint.”

With more than 200 “signing statements” the administration acts on its belief that the “unitary executive” trumps the power of the legislative branch in any instance it chooses. This belief has been further enforced with the administration’s use of a wide range of precedent-setting arguments to keep its functionaries from testifying before Congress.

There is much more. In all instances, the 109th Congress—and the public—have rolled over without significant resistance.

Most crucial now are Presidential Directive #51, Executive Orders #13303, #13315, #13350, #13364, #13422, #13438, and more, by which Bush has granted himself an immense arsenal of powers for which the term “dictatorial” is a modest understatement.

The Founders established our government with checks and balances. But executive orders have accumulated important precedent. The Emancipation Proclamation by which Lincoln declared an end to slavery in the South, was issued under the “military necessity” of adding blacks to the Union Army, a step without which the North might not have won the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order #8802 established the Fair Employment Practices Commission. Harry Truman’s Executive Order #9981 desegregated the military.

Most to the point, FDR’s Executive Order #9066 ordered the forcible internment of 100,000 people of Japanese descent into the now infamous concentration camps of World War II.

There is also precedent for a president overriding the Supreme Court. In the 1830s Chief Justice John Marshall enshrined the right of the Cherokee Nation to sovereignty over its ancestral land in the Appalachian Mountains. But President Andrew Jackson scorned the decision. Some 14,000 native Americans were moved at gunpoint to Oklahoma. More than 3,000 died along the way.

All this will be relevant should Team Bush envision a defeat in the 2008 election and decide to call it off. It’s well established that Richard Nixon—mentor to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney—commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 election.

Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a “national emergency” such as a terror attack at a nuclear power plant or something similar?

Nothing in the behavior of this Congress indicates that it is capable of significant resistance. Impeachment seems beyond it. Nor does it seem Congress would actually remove Bush if it did put him on trial.

Short of that, Bush clearly does not view anything Congress might do as a meaningful impediment. After all, how many divisions does the Congress command?

The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would almost certainly rubber stamp a Bush coup. If not, like Jackson, he could ignore it as easily as he would ignore Congress.

What does that leave? There is much idle speculation now about what the armed forces would do. We also hear loose talk about “90 million gun owners.”

From the public side, the only conceivable counter-force might be a national strike or an effective long-term campaign of general non-cooperation.

But we can certainly assume the mainstream media will give lock-step support to whatever the regime says and does. It’s also a given that those likely to lead the resistance will immediately land in those new prisons being built by Halliburton et. al.

So how do we cope with the harsh realities of such a Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup?

We may have about a year to prepare. Every possible scenario needs to be discussed in excruciating detail.

For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing.

HARVEY WASSERMAN’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES is at www.solartopia.org, along with SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030. The FITRAKIS FILES are at www.freepress.org (where this article was originally published), along with HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA’S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, which Bob and Harvey co-wrote.