[kj] ot - we cross the rubicon

Rob's Arse joker at Z6.COM
Thu Mar 9 03:44:06 EST 2006


Absolutely Ade.

That one has been worryin' me a while. All that Western decadence on their doorstep.
Tricky one. The extremists see anyone who does not comply with their thought process as a target, regardless of Nationality.

--- ade at the-lab.zetnet.co.uk wrote:

From: "ade" <ade at the-lab.zetnet.co.uk>
To: "'A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)'" <gathering at misera.net>
Subject: RE: [kj] ot - we cross the rubicon
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:52:04 -0000

I'm wondering when (or whether) the bombs will start going off in Dubai...

-----Original Message-----
From: gathering-bounces at misera.net
[mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]On Behalf Of Mark Kolmar
Sent: 08 March 2006 23:41
To: fluwdot at earthlink.net; A list about all things Killing Joke (the
band!)
Subject: Re: [kj] ot - we cross the rubicon


Too bad about the Hitler reference.  "Hitler" has been removed from
the lexicon of legitimate political discourse.  As soon as anyone
mentions that name, most people stop listening.

So, unfortunately, Nazi Germany is no longer available as a cautionary
tale or historical reference about tyranny.  No leader will display
all of the excesses of Hitler, so one can always discount anything
short of that -- which everything will be.

This means, however, even if Dick Cheney took power by coup, grew a
small moustache, and burned down the Capitol, anyone who made the
comparison to Hitler would disqualify himself from the debate.

Though the threat from terrorism is real and serious, the Republicans
in power exaggerate it for political gain and to accrue power.
Business interests will continue to go along with this as long as
their agenda is served.  Social conservatives can't switch to anyone
else.  The swing voters are the same folks who are scared to let their
kid cross a suburban street without a helmet.  This deal for a company
owned by United Arab Emirates to take over operations of U.S. sea
ports tells you it's all business-as-usual, even with the scary talk
of the last several years.

I should say, at first I though the U.A.E. / Dubai Ports World deal
was awful.  After some consideration, I think it's alright.  If
anything were to go wrong at a port, people would blame Bush, but they
would blame "the Arabs" for sure.  Therefore this company has to be
damn sure nothing goes wrong.  The deal is an accidental double bank
shot to help ensure peace through business deals.  This is the only
way the U.S. can secure itself from rival China too.

--Mark

On 3/1/06, fluw <fluwdot at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Tyrant in the White House
> Bush Crosses the Rubicon
>
> By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
>
> Dictatorships seldom appear full-fledged but emerge piecemeal. When Julius
> Caesar crossed the Rubicon with one Roman legion he broke the tradition
that
> protected the civilian government from victorious generals and launched
the
> transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Fearing that
> Caesar would become a king, the Senate assassinated him. From the civil
wars
> that followed, Caesar's grand nephew, Octavian, emerged as the first Roman
> emperor, Caesar Augustus.
>
> Two thousand years later in Germany, Adolf Hitler's rise to dictator from
> his appointment as chancellor was rapid. Hitler used the Reichstag fire to
> create an atmosphere of crisis. Both the judicial and legislative branches
> of government collapsed, and Hitler's decrees became law. The Decree for
the
> Protection of People and State (Feb. 28, 1933) suspended guarantees of
> personal liberty and permitted arrest and incarceration without trial. The
> Enabling Act (March 23, 1933) transferred legislative power to Hitler,
> permitting him to decree laws, laws moreover that "may deviate from the
> Constitution."
>
> The dictatorship of the Roman emperors was not based on an ideology. The
> Nazis had an ideology of sorts, but Hitler's dictatorship was largely
> personal and agenda-based. The dictatorship that emerged from the
Bolshevik
> Revolution was based in ideology. Lenin declared that the Communist
Party's
> dictatorship over the Russian people rests "directly on force, not limited
> by anything, not restricted by any laws, nor any absolute rules." Stalin's
> dictatorship over the Communist Party was based on coercion alone,
> unrestrained by any limitations or inhibitions.
>
> In this first decade of the 21st century the United States regards itself
as
> a land of democracy and civil liberty but, in fact, is an incipient
> dictatorship. Ideology plays only a limited role in the emerging
> dictatorship. The demise of American democracy is largely the result of
> historical developments.
>
> Lincoln was the first American tyrant. Lincoln justified his tyranny in
the
> name of preserving the Union. His extra-legal, extra-constitutional
methods
> were tolerated in order to suppress Northern opposition to Lincoln's war
> against the Southern secession.
>
> The first major lasting assault on the US Constitution's separation of
> powers, which is the basis for our political system, came with the
response
> of the Roosevelt administration to the crisis of the Great Depression. The
> New Deal resulted in Congress delegating its legislative powers to the
> executive branch. Today when Congress passes a statute it is little more
> than an authorization for an executive agency to make the law by writing
the
> regulations that implement it.
>
> Prior to the New Deal, legislation was tightly written to minimize any
> executive branch interpretation. Only in this way can law be accountable
to
> the people. If the executive branch that enforces the law also writes the
> law, "all legislative powers" are no longer vested in elected
> representatives in Congress. The Constitution is violated, and the
> separation of powers is breached.
>
> The principle that power delegated to Congress by the people cannot be
> delegated by Congress to the executive branch is the mainstay of our
> political system. Until President Roosevelt overturned this principle by
> threatening to pack the Supreme Court, the executive branch had no role in
> interpreting the law. As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote: "That
congress
> cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle
> universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the
> system of government ordained by the Constitution."
>
> Despite seven decades of an imperial presidency that has risen from the
New
> Deal's breach of the separation of powers, Republican attorneys, who
> constitute the membership of the quarter-century-old Federalist Society,
the
> candidate group for Republican nominees to federal judgeships, write
tracts
> about the Imperial Congress and the Imperial Judiciary that are briefs for
> concentrating more power in the executive. Federalist Society members
> pretend that Congress and the Judiciary have stolen all the power and run
> away with it.
>
> The Republican interest in strengthening executive power has its origin in
> agenda frustration from the constraints placed on Republican
administrations
> by Democratic congresses. The thrust to enlarge the President's powers
> predates the Bush administration but is being furthered to a dangerous
> extent during Bush's second term. The confirmation of Bush's nominee,
Samuel
> Alito, a member of the Federalist Society, to the Supreme Court will
provide
> five votes in favor of enlarged presidential powers.
>
> President Bush has used "signing statements" hundreds of times to vitiate
> the meaning of statutes passed by Congress. In effect, Bush is vetoing the
> bills he signs into law by asserting unilateral authority as
> commander-in-chief to bypass or set aside the laws he signs. For example,
> Bush has asserted that he has the power to ignore the McCain amendment
> against torture, to ignore the law that requires a warrant to spy on
> Americans, to ignore the prohibition against indefinite detention without
> charges or trial, and to ignore the Geneva Conventions to which the US is
> signatory.
>
> In effect, Bush is asserting the powers that accrued to Hitler in 1933.
His
> Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim
> that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as
the
> Supreme Court. An Alito Court is likely to agree with this false claim.
>
> This is the great issue that is before the country. But it is pushed into
> the background by political battles over abortion and homosexual rights.
> Many people fighting to strengthen the executive think they are fighting
> against legitimizing sodomy and murder in the womb. They are unaware that
> the real issue is that America is on the verge of elevating its president
> above the law.
>
> Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo
argues
> that no law can restrict the president in his role as commander-in-chief.
> Thus, once the president is at war--even a vague open-ended "war on
> terror"--Bush's Justice Department says the president is free to undertake
> any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and
> indefinite detention of American citizens.
>
> The commander-in-chief role is probably sufficiently elastic to expand to
> any crisis, whether real or fabricated. Thus has the US arrived at the
verge
> of dictatorship.
>
> This development has little to do with Bush, who is unlikely to be aware
> that the Constitution is experiencing its final rending on his watch.
> America's descent into dictatorship is the result of historical
developments
> and of old political battles dating back to President Nixon being driven
> from office by a Democratic Congress.
>
> There is today no constitutional party. Both political parties, most
> constitutional lawyers, and the bar associations are willing to set aside
> the Constitution whenever it interferes with their agendas. Americans have
> forgotten the prerequisites for freedom, and those pursuing power have
> forgotten what it means when it falls into other hands. Americans are very
> close to losing their constitutional system and civil liberties. It is
> paradoxical that American democracy is the likely casualty of a "war on
> terror" that is being justified in the name of the expansion of democracy.
> Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has
> contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant
> Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate
> economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of
> California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The
Tyranny
> of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts at yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gathering mailing list
> Gathering at misera.net
> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering


_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering



_____________________________________________________________
Free email at www.Z6.com ( and home of www.worldmap.com)


More information about the Gathering mailing list