Fear makes rules
An article in Wired News, as of 10:04 AM Feb. 06, 2005 PT,
discusses a proposal to knock down some hills and fill in a canyon in order to close part of the US/Mexican border north of Tijuana. Environmentalist are opposed, as expected. What bothers me isn't that this is being supported in the atmosphere of (selective) fear rampant in our government lately, nor that environmentalists who often seem opposed to everything, are protesting. What bothers me is this paragraph:
A provision in an immigration bill expected to pass the House next week would give the homeland security secretary authority to move forward with the project regardless of any laws that stand in the way, and would bar courts from hearing lawsuits against it.
That is scary. Our congress is proposing to authorize action:
- regardless of any laws that stand in the way, and
- to prohibit judicial review.
Down that road lurk many bad things. Judicial review and three independent branches of government seem to be a fundamental principles of our constitution directly threatened by this proposal. Our country long has promoted, or claims to promote, the rule of law, and, at least on occasion, the idea that no one is above the law. This isn't the first threat to our principles to startle and to alarm me. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib raised concerns, for example. It troubles me that we are threatening Iran over the possibility that they might build a nuclear weapon, but are beginning design of a new generation of our own such weapons. I don't want to produce a laundry list of things I find troubling about US policy and direction; the list is too long and probably easy to find if one looks.
This item, however, really rang an alarm for me, and not because of environmental concerns. Where are we going? What are we doing? How will the great experiment in continue if we shoot ourselves in the constitutional foot upon which we stand?
posted by AkLewy at 11:28 AM
1 Comments:
Dad~
Do not worry, all is not lost in the fight on Constitutional principles. Due to what the LYM has been up to, exposing the connections between social security privatization and the Chilean model of fascism, as well as LaRouche's webcast on Jan. 5th, we have managed to remoralize the democratic party in Congress and get them to stand up on the principles of the Constitution. This is pretty freakin' cool, considering how they had all but given up to them damned fascist neo-cons. There have been some pretty amazing shifts in society. Organizations that were either neutral or against LaRouche have been realizing he is right and are citing our intelligence about privatization, such as the AARP, AFL-CIO, Rock the Vote, the Congressional Black Caucus, the New York Times, and Seymour Hersh of "The New Yorker". ABCOnline copied the NY Times article, calling it "Taking a Page From Lyndon LaRouche". We got the entire democratic party and the independent from Vermont (except that "free traitor" Joe Leiberman) to completely oppose privatization, signing their names on a letter to Bush. The top six dems (minus Leiberman) met at the memorial of FDR the other day and dedicated the letter to the revival of FDR's ideas. They booed Bush at his State of the Union when he talked about privatization!! Even some republicans are opposing privatization; some realize it's a scam and some realize its a suicidal political issue. (See, if we stop Bush on privatization, it will politically KILL the Executive's ability to do anything. Then, Congress can take the reins and we will start moving away from that destructive trend, and toward a new Bretton Woods, a new Marshal plan, and a new Treaty of Westphalia. Hello world peace! Goodbye chaos!)
Not only that, but former Pres. Bill Clinton went to a conference at Davos, Switzerland, calling for a new economic architecture in the model of what Lyn has been saying, i.e. joint nation infrastructure projects, debt reconcilliation, that sort of stuff. Bush's Attorney General nominee, now elect, was totally exposed for his tolerant stance on torture of POWs and advocacy that the Chief Executive be above the law of the Constitution, and 35 senators voted against him!! WOW! This is huge! This completely kills any sort of political mandate from Bush as to Gonzalas' legitimacy. Also, Condi Rice was similarly exposed, and received the most votes against a Secretary of State in the history of the country! She got 13, second in line is Henry Kissenger at 8.
So we've entered a period of discontinuity, as LaRouche has been saying, which is also a revolutionary opportunity. The international community is listening to him, and the national communities have realized that Bush and Co. can be stopped. This revolution is in full swing! So what now? The mission we have next, is to forcefully retire George Shultz, former Sec. of State to Nixon. This is the neocon that designed the entire current administration. He was behind getting Arnold "my dad was a Nazi" Swarzenegger to be the Governor of CA, he organized many of the coups that happened across the world, putting dictators in power who then privatized the local pensions for Wall Street, such as happened in Chile under Pinochet. Shultz organized the Pinochet coup. He organized the Cheney/Bush coup, both elections. So we're exposing him for what he is, an economic hitman. If we get this guy, then we've dealt a serious blow to the synarchist network.
So, don't worry dad, your fearless son is helping march this country away from fascism.
Ian
Post a Comment
<< Home