So Let's Call Bush The Dictator That He Is
When a country moves towards totalitarianism, the first casualty is always the truth. By that I mean there’s a strong tendency on the part of the institutions of the country, and by the people themselves to lie about what is really going on in their own country. They remain in denial, and the simple facts of what is happening all around them seems to have little or no effect because the more reality intrudes, the more they would desperately like to believe that things will go on as they once were rather than to face what is coming. This fundamental denial is grounded in a lack of courage, and what is most characteristic of America today is political cowardice that radiates not only through the media and the ‘loyal opposition’ (ie Democrats), but through the hearts of average Americans who don’t really want to know what’s going on in their own country.
What is this truth? What’s the lie I’m talking about? It’s repeated over and over every day. Because every time someone says ‘President Bush’ it is a lie. Every time some newscaster or talking head refers to Bush as the president – it is another lie.
The presidency is a Constitutional office. The president’s powers and authority is very clearly defined under article II of the Constitution of the United States. That’s a fact. The Constitution was written, ratified and adapted along with the Bill of Rights by the original states between 1787-1791, and it is still supposed to be the highest authority in the land.
The president of the United States cannot be above the law or the Constitution - that’s another fact. If a person claiming to be president, puts himself above the law and above the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, he is no longer the president, inasmuch as the presidency is an office that only exists under the direct authority of the US Constitution - so that any man who puts himself above the law and above the Constitution can no longer be the president by definition. When the president can do whatever he wants and becomes the law of the land, then the Constitution has been effectively repealed and superceded, and the president is no longer the president but a dictator.
Not that Bush can’t go on calling himself a president, and even get everyone else to call him president – but he can’t actually be the president. He can call himself whatever he wants, and he can get the corporate media to minimize and cover up all his crimes. But just because he has that power or influence, doesn’t mean he also has the power to deny the truth of what he has done or what he has become. And it doesn’t mean that I have to lie or shut up about it, just because nobody else wants to tell the truth about it
Jesus said that you know a tree by its fruit. By the same token you know who is or isn’t the president, by whether or not he has taken upon himself the powers of a dictator, and put himself above the law.
Bush might be the president of Iraq, but he's no longer the president of the United States. Maybe that’s what he means when he calls himself the president. Saddam Hussein once called himself the president of Iraq, though he was actually a dictator. Saddam Hussein held crooked elections, much like the election in Florida where Bush swindled himself into power by getting the Supreme Court to appoint him. But where his legitimacy was once in question, now there is no longer any doubt. He is not a president of the United States, and he never will be. His own actions have sealed his disgraceful place in history.
In the end, it is not how democratic the elections are or seem to be – that’s not what makes an American president. What separates an American president from a foreign dictator, is in the way they govern, and not in the way they originally came to power. There are many dictators who first came to power by way of a democratic election or by public acclaim, but then they assumed dictatorial powers and put themselves above the law, much like Bush has.
The term ‘dictator’ was originally coined in Roman times, and America today is much like the Roman Empire was then. It was a term given to the men who, in a time of national crisis, were given the power to ‘dictate’ and do whatever they wanted or had to do to save the nation and empire. That’s why it is so amusing when political ignoramuses say to the effect “Well, polls show that the American people want him to have this power (to break the law and spy on Americans without any warrant) to fight against terrorism." Even if that were true (and it really isn’t – most Americans want him to get a warrant, but the media is lying about everything these days) that is certainly not proof that Bush is not a dictator, just because most people want to give him dictatorial power. That is actually the definition of a dictator, as someone who has been given unlimited power by public acclaim (in contrast with the powers outlined by the Constitution) to do whatever he wants to save the nation in a period of national crisis.
I remember when Bill Clinton misled the court about his private sex life in a politically motivated civil suit. It seems like anothwer world now. I remember all the shrieks and cries from the far right, from traitors and conspirators like the crooked corporate lawyers of the Federalist society, who were even then plotting their grab for dictatorial power, and who now infest the goverment at every level like a cancer: “The President is not above the law!! Clinton is not above the law!!! If we don’t impeach and remove him from office, our entire system of government as predicated upon the rule of the law will fail! ” A prediction that could only come true if they were the ones to carry it out. The very same crooked lawyers who couldn't shut up when it came to applying the rule of law to Bill Clinton's sex life, are now writing endlessly contrived and classified legal opinions exempting Bush from the law whenever it really matters. How I remember the weeks and months and years of hearing their disingenuous arguments repeated over and over and over again in the media. How deafening their silence today, how short their memory seems to be when the power is in their hands. The difference between freedom and tyranny seems mostly a matter of cynically conrived timing. The difference between a president and a dictator is the high standard they once expected Clinton to follow even in his sex life vs. the blatant lawbreaking they are allowing Bush to get away with now.
This morning Senator Russ Feingold said he planned to introduce a resolution to censure Bush over his illegal program of domestic surveillance. It was remarkable that even this tame slap on the wrist was characterized as being extreme and out of touch by the interviewer, who dared him: 'if you think he’s broken the law, then why not impeach him?' (Stephanopolous pretended not to know that Impeachments can only start in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.) The corporate media regularly portrays Democrats as extreme and out of touch when they stand on principal, and weak and unfocussed when they only follow the polls. OTOH, they portray Bush as strong and decisive whenever his extremist agenda is not shared by the rest of the country, and they do their best to cover up how weak and unfocused he really is when it counts, like after Hurricane Katrina.
Democrats seem so afraid of being seen as weak on terrorism, they don’t understand that it is this fear that makes them appear weak. They should remember how it was FDR who said the "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", and never was this more true than in the Democraitic Party today. They never miss an opportunity to miss another opportunity. What issue could more clearly point out the real danger of one party government, than the issue of widespread and illegal wiretapping? But instead of seizing on the issue to focus their campaign and educate the public, they believe they can win back the Congress by default. If Republicans could go out on a limb over a blow job, why can’t the Democrats defend the Constitution? Leadership means convincing the public you are right, not convincing yourself that the public’s ignorance is nothing to worry about. A recent survey showed that more Americans could name the characters on the Simpsons than could name the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution.
The corporate media feeds upon public ignorance. It lies and reshapes issues to suit their financial agenda. The issue is whether or not Bush broke the law – the real issue is whether the president is still operating under the law, or whether he has become something else – a dictator. This is probably the most important question of our time – whether or not we will remain a democratic republic, or whether we are degenerating in some other direction, and if so why, and what can we do about it?
But the media would like to pretend that this issue is really a non-starter, because the public thinks the president should be allowed to spy on terrorists. The media not only lies about the real issue, but it lies about the public’s own position on that issue, because most of the public wants Bush to follow the law. The media adapts all Bush’s talking points and ends up doing what Bush has done all along - asking and answering its own questions, and not the ones that needed to be asked and answered. The media never told us the truth about Bush - it was Bush who taught the media how to lie.
Bush never had to break the law to spy on terrorists. He wanted to break the law. He didn’t need to get a court order right away – he could have done it within the law, (if indeed it was all about terrorism). But he needed to break the law because he is by nature a lawless man, and he acts according to his nature. He has no control over his arrogant pride, his unbridled greed or his lust for more power – so why would he have any respect for the law? Respect for the law implies respect for a higher authority, and there is no authority higher for Bush than his own ambitions and appetites. The ‘lawless one’ – the Antichrist – is a man who has become a law unto himself. Bush talks a lot about God, but in actuality his out-of-control appetites are his god.
How many people have been arrested three times (and not for a minor traffic ticket)? Bush has He tortures people and breaks the law because that’s part of his character and it always has been. He tortured animals and he tortured students in college – he broke the law then and always got away with it. It’s no different now. It has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with George Bush – his character, what he is as a man, and what he's doing to our country as a consequence. To pretend otherwise - that this is about terrorism - is to live in national denial.
The corporate media held back this story for years. The corporate media already knows his illegal spying has much more to do with domestic politics than international terrorism. It already has the testimony of Quakers and others who have been subject to domestic spying, and so they know, even though they don't want to admit, that the spying has nothing to do with terrorism. Or are the Quakers terrorists too? Are they receiving overseas phone calls from Bin Laden? But the media will continue to lie and pretend that it’s about terrorism even though they know it isn’t. Like co-dependents who are just as sick as the violent offender, they will take Bush at his word even though he has lied about absolutely everything else, even the illegal domestic spying program itself. They will keep calling him president even though they know he has become more of a dictator.
But I will not continue calling the torturing lawbreaker in the White House president. I will not go along with a corporate culture of corruption and lies. Nor will I defame the honorable service of other presidents by pretending he is one of them, let alone denigrate the ultimate sacrifice of those Americans who have given their very lives defending the same Constitution that Bush is now using as a public urinal. Though he could probably do anything he wants at this point and get away with it, from this day forward and until he is brought to justice for his crimes I will refer to him as the degenerate dictator that he is. In a nation of lies and liars the only real crime is telling the truth, (as the whistleblower who told the truth about Bush’s illegal domestic spying is now finding out). But it is when we stop telling the truth that we are no longer free.
What is this truth? What’s the lie I’m talking about? It’s repeated over and over every day. Because every time someone says ‘President Bush’ it is a lie. Every time some newscaster or talking head refers to Bush as the president – it is another lie.
The presidency is a Constitutional office. The president’s powers and authority is very clearly defined under article II of the Constitution of the United States. That’s a fact. The Constitution was written, ratified and adapted along with the Bill of Rights by the original states between 1787-1791, and it is still supposed to be the highest authority in the land.
The president of the United States cannot be above the law or the Constitution - that’s another fact. If a person claiming to be president, puts himself above the law and above the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, he is no longer the president, inasmuch as the presidency is an office that only exists under the direct authority of the US Constitution - so that any man who puts himself above the law and above the Constitution can no longer be the president by definition. When the president can do whatever he wants and becomes the law of the land, then the Constitution has been effectively repealed and superceded, and the president is no longer the president but a dictator.
Not that Bush can’t go on calling himself a president, and even get everyone else to call him president – but he can’t actually be the president. He can call himself whatever he wants, and he can get the corporate media to minimize and cover up all his crimes. But just because he has that power or influence, doesn’t mean he also has the power to deny the truth of what he has done or what he has become. And it doesn’t mean that I have to lie or shut up about it, just because nobody else wants to tell the truth about it
Jesus said that you know a tree by its fruit. By the same token you know who is or isn’t the president, by whether or not he has taken upon himself the powers of a dictator, and put himself above the law.
Bush might be the president of Iraq, but he's no longer the president of the United States. Maybe that’s what he means when he calls himself the president. Saddam Hussein once called himself the president of Iraq, though he was actually a dictator. Saddam Hussein held crooked elections, much like the election in Florida where Bush swindled himself into power by getting the Supreme Court to appoint him. But where his legitimacy was once in question, now there is no longer any doubt. He is not a president of the United States, and he never will be. His own actions have sealed his disgraceful place in history.
In the end, it is not how democratic the elections are or seem to be – that’s not what makes an American president. What separates an American president from a foreign dictator, is in the way they govern, and not in the way they originally came to power. There are many dictators who first came to power by way of a democratic election or by public acclaim, but then they assumed dictatorial powers and put themselves above the law, much like Bush has.
The term ‘dictator’ was originally coined in Roman times, and America today is much like the Roman Empire was then. It was a term given to the men who, in a time of national crisis, were given the power to ‘dictate’ and do whatever they wanted or had to do to save the nation and empire. That’s why it is so amusing when political ignoramuses say to the effect “Well, polls show that the American people want him to have this power (to break the law and spy on Americans without any warrant) to fight against terrorism." Even if that were true (and it really isn’t – most Americans want him to get a warrant, but the media is lying about everything these days) that is certainly not proof that Bush is not a dictator, just because most people want to give him dictatorial power. That is actually the definition of a dictator, as someone who has been given unlimited power by public acclaim (in contrast with the powers outlined by the Constitution) to do whatever he wants to save the nation in a period of national crisis.
I remember when Bill Clinton misled the court about his private sex life in a politically motivated civil suit. It seems like anothwer world now. I remember all the shrieks and cries from the far right, from traitors and conspirators like the crooked corporate lawyers of the Federalist society, who were even then plotting their grab for dictatorial power, and who now infest the goverment at every level like a cancer: “The President is not above the law!! Clinton is not above the law!!! If we don’t impeach and remove him from office, our entire system of government as predicated upon the rule of the law will fail! ” A prediction that could only come true if they were the ones to carry it out. The very same crooked lawyers who couldn't shut up when it came to applying the rule of law to Bill Clinton's sex life, are now writing endlessly contrived and classified legal opinions exempting Bush from the law whenever it really matters. How I remember the weeks and months and years of hearing their disingenuous arguments repeated over and over and over again in the media. How deafening their silence today, how short their memory seems to be when the power is in their hands. The difference between freedom and tyranny seems mostly a matter of cynically conrived timing. The difference between a president and a dictator is the high standard they once expected Clinton to follow even in his sex life vs. the blatant lawbreaking they are allowing Bush to get away with now.
This morning Senator Russ Feingold said he planned to introduce a resolution to censure Bush over his illegal program of domestic surveillance. It was remarkable that even this tame slap on the wrist was characterized as being extreme and out of touch by the interviewer, who dared him: 'if you think he’s broken the law, then why not impeach him?' (Stephanopolous pretended not to know that Impeachments can only start in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.) The corporate media regularly portrays Democrats as extreme and out of touch when they stand on principal, and weak and unfocussed when they only follow the polls. OTOH, they portray Bush as strong and decisive whenever his extremist agenda is not shared by the rest of the country, and they do their best to cover up how weak and unfocused he really is when it counts, like after Hurricane Katrina.
Democrats seem so afraid of being seen as weak on terrorism, they don’t understand that it is this fear that makes them appear weak. They should remember how it was FDR who said the "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", and never was this more true than in the Democraitic Party today. They never miss an opportunity to miss another opportunity. What issue could more clearly point out the real danger of one party government, than the issue of widespread and illegal wiretapping? But instead of seizing on the issue to focus their campaign and educate the public, they believe they can win back the Congress by default. If Republicans could go out on a limb over a blow job, why can’t the Democrats defend the Constitution? Leadership means convincing the public you are right, not convincing yourself that the public’s ignorance is nothing to worry about. A recent survey showed that more Americans could name the characters on the Simpsons than could name the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution.
The corporate media feeds upon public ignorance. It lies and reshapes issues to suit their financial agenda. The issue is whether or not Bush broke the law – the real issue is whether the president is still operating under the law, or whether he has become something else – a dictator. This is probably the most important question of our time – whether or not we will remain a democratic republic, or whether we are degenerating in some other direction, and if so why, and what can we do about it?
But the media would like to pretend that this issue is really a non-starter, because the public thinks the president should be allowed to spy on terrorists. The media not only lies about the real issue, but it lies about the public’s own position on that issue, because most of the public wants Bush to follow the law. The media adapts all Bush’s talking points and ends up doing what Bush has done all along - asking and answering its own questions, and not the ones that needed to be asked and answered. The media never told us the truth about Bush - it was Bush who taught the media how to lie.
Bush never had to break the law to spy on terrorists. He wanted to break the law. He didn’t need to get a court order right away – he could have done it within the law, (if indeed it was all about terrorism). But he needed to break the law because he is by nature a lawless man, and he acts according to his nature. He has no control over his arrogant pride, his unbridled greed or his lust for more power – so why would he have any respect for the law? Respect for the law implies respect for a higher authority, and there is no authority higher for Bush than his own ambitions and appetites. The ‘lawless one’ – the Antichrist – is a man who has become a law unto himself. Bush talks a lot about God, but in actuality his out-of-control appetites are his god.
How many people have been arrested three times (and not for a minor traffic ticket)? Bush has He tortures people and breaks the law because that’s part of his character and it always has been. He tortured animals and he tortured students in college – he broke the law then and always got away with it. It’s no different now. It has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with George Bush – his character, what he is as a man, and what he's doing to our country as a consequence. To pretend otherwise - that this is about terrorism - is to live in national denial.
The corporate media held back this story for years. The corporate media already knows his illegal spying has much more to do with domestic politics than international terrorism. It already has the testimony of Quakers and others who have been subject to domestic spying, and so they know, even though they don't want to admit, that the spying has nothing to do with terrorism. Or are the Quakers terrorists too? Are they receiving overseas phone calls from Bin Laden? But the media will continue to lie and pretend that it’s about terrorism even though they know it isn’t. Like co-dependents who are just as sick as the violent offender, they will take Bush at his word even though he has lied about absolutely everything else, even the illegal domestic spying program itself. They will keep calling him president even though they know he has become more of a dictator.
But I will not continue calling the torturing lawbreaker in the White House president. I will not go along with a corporate culture of corruption and lies. Nor will I defame the honorable service of other presidents by pretending he is one of them, let alone denigrate the ultimate sacrifice of those Americans who have given their very lives defending the same Constitution that Bush is now using as a public urinal. Though he could probably do anything he wants at this point and get away with it, from this day forward and until he is brought to justice for his crimes I will refer to him as the degenerate dictator that he is. In a nation of lies and liars the only real crime is telling the truth, (as the whistleblower who told the truth about Bush’s illegal domestic spying is now finding out). But it is when we stop telling the truth that we are no longer free.
posted by R. Stephen Hanchett at 8:56 PM
<< Home