A tyrant who will only face you on the battlefield
After ignoring the Congress and the courts, what is to be done to tame a dictator? It appears battle is the only forum some tyrants recognize.
Sovereign nations would rather assert their dignity and confront tyranny on the battlefield, than assent to threats, intrusions, and non-sense.
It is time to listen to the Iranians. You may not accept their position, but it is wise to let them express their hopes and dreams. We might learn something: The truth.
Although I may agree that in 2006 American public opinion is largely irrelevant to this President, rationale minds have not always been threatened with death, imprisonment, or public lambasting.
Recall the Cuban Missile Crisis. Calm heads prevailed. There was no nuclear war.
Rather than looking at themselves as "peace advocates," call yourselves what you are: Americans with another point of view. If you buy into the RNC agenda, then you're accepting their failed argument: "That people who disagree with fascism in the White House are liberal and peace freaks."
Actually, I'd rather spend time listening to those who talk about trifles of the Constitution, the rule of law, than my fellow Republicans looking for another excuse to have a military parade.
Despite what the self-defeatists outside the White House may believe, we still have a constitution and free people in America still outnumber the mindless robots in the Republican Party. If the fascists in the White House dare to clamp down on free people and throw you in camps, know there are millions of people around the globe who will do their best to liberate you -- you just need to help them out now so they are ready to help you later.
What did Specter really say?
There's some dispute.
Actually, it appears as though there is some dispute with the quote. Crooks and liars has a different version.
Their version is, "Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution." The above uses a different word -- "A remedy" is not the same as "the remedy".
With respect to the central problem -- unchecked American tyranny, moving at odds with the laws of the land -- we have more than one option. We could
[a] have a Constitutional Convention;
[b] rewrite the Constitution;
[c] make all RNC party members outlaws; even
[d] create a new government under the existing Constitution;
[e] Congress could even define new rules for a new army -- one that would compel this tyrant to submit to the Constitution with the threat of force.
The laws can be written to tame a tyrant -- Congress has alot of power, if it chooses to use it. The threat of Legislative abuse was the reason the framers divided the Legislature into two houses.
Two houses to divide power
Perhaps it is time to similarly split the executive into two competing houses -- so that we have three branches -- but two executive houses which must openly agree -- as must the Congress.
The framers appear to have gotten it half right. We can always ensure power is separated by separating the power from the powerful.
Americans have many options -- the key is to keep an open mind, and notice the details. The is not the same as A -- B is not the same as truth; P is not the same is veracity; W is not the same as inspiration.
Let the Constitution be a guide -- there are larger possibilities. Simply listen. A single line -- with competing camps over what was or was not said -- there is much work to do to achieve understanding, much less agreement. Stay focused.
Some like Lott call Filibusters unconstitutional. But the Constitution gives each house the power to create their own rules.
Will there be a filibuster over the threat of taking a vote to eliminate the filibuster?
McCain once said he was against torture, but assented to the White House amendment which had the opposite signing statement.
Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the President or the Congress. A leader who refuses to assent to the rule of law no longer can compel compliance with that tyranny.
Our agreement -- which this President freely took at oath to uphold -- was that we would give up our right to wage war, in exchange for his agreement to protect our rights.
The agreement is simple: By giving up our right to move without regard to civility, we raise the standard of living for all. When we agree to turn over our war making power and rights to the President, he returns the favor -- or provides contractual consideration -- by agreeing to protect our rights.
When a sovereign no longer is willing to protect our rights -- and moves without regard to his obligations -- we, the sovereign and source of sovereignty, are no longer bound by a contract-agreement the other party no longer wishes to recognize.
No leader can expect the source of sovereignty -- us, we the people -- to be bound by an agreement this sovereign does not wish to be bound. Once this leader understands that he ignores all peaceful forums -- the people can simply do what we have agreed not to do -- wage war.
That is where we find ourselves. This tyrant has a choice: Whether he will assent to the rule of law -- or whether he will be compelled to assent to the agreement through the threat -- or actual use of lawful force.
A filibuster is legal. It is within the rules of each house. All statements about the "illegality" or "unconstitutional nature" of a filibuster are merely smokescreens -- to distract attention from the broken promises of this leader.
He has defied his agreement. He has obligations. He refuses to honor them. There is no reason we should respect or honor him.
One choice: To assent to the rule of law, or be what he self-evidently is: An outlaw.
A filibuster about Alito, can move in concert with a Judiciary hearing into the NSA unlawful activity. Nothing before us suggests that Alito's confirmation must be decided before we have the facts abot the President's unlawful conduct.
A party doesn't have to be a party of "unity". A party is what it is. Whether it is united, organized, or a chaotic mess is another matter. Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution -- rather, the founders merely referred to them as competing factions.
If we have a united Party -- at best we'll have a strong faction, but not necessarily something that is required or mandated by any law. Yes, it is desirable to have a united party -- but one must be united for something that offers solutions.
- - -
This argument is circular:
A. If we are strong, we will be opposed;
B. It is better to avoid confrontation;
C. If we stand up for ourselves, we will get knocked down;
D. So, let's lie on the ground and get beaten like dogs -- because if we stand up, we'll get beaten like big dogs.
. . .
Here is the quote:
"The reason she's not a big fan of filibustering this particular candidate is because the GOP will use the "nuclear option" which will, in turn, hurt the Democrats and have people perceive us as the "weak party".
- - - -
What is to be done when a tyrant refuses to assent to the rule of law? Self-evidently, he has refused to comply with his lawful obligations. He agreed to protect our rights -- and we give up our right to wage war. He has not fulfilled his obligations, refuses to assent to the courts.
What is to be done? In 1776, when denied all options, and a tyrant refused to be reasonable, they took their dispute to the only forum the tyrant recognized: The battlefield.
If we must assent to tyranny, and all options to peacefully resolve this have been exhausted -- as they have not -- this is where we find ourselves: Without any option but to use force, but we are far from that.
If they are going to threaten to take away a right -- the right to filibuster -- if it is used, then "not using it" makes the right meaningless. Why not use the filibuster and expedite this process -- let the world see they will take away the right to filibuster. No need to pretend we have a right when that right cannot be exercised.
To defeat and prevail over the fascists in the White House -- one cannot simply whine about the problems of peace or your movement. You must inspire the Republicans to believe -- yes, that means reaching out to those you most despise, listen to them, and build a future which addresses their concerns, not just forces them to choose between extreme rhetoric and rhetoric.
If you cannot inspire free people to refuse to obey unlawful orders, or remove themselves from corrupt and lawless movements, then you have a self-feeding fascist system. One cannot talk of peace to a foe that only knows war and brutality. They are not to respected as rational people.
If they choose to not debate in Congress, and corrupt your elections, and not give you the opportunity to air your grievances in the courts, then the fascists in the White House have told the world and their citizens at home: "We only recognize one forum to resolve all disputes: The battlefield."
If that is what they want, let their actions show the world that the issue isn't between peace and war -- but between barbaric, undisciplined use of raw power against the Constitution. America is a cancer. It will either be tamed at home, implode, or it will ultimately be defeated on the last forum they will suffer: The battlefield.
Americans, you have wished for this. It is not time to talk of peace, but to prepare for the forum your opponent freely chooses: Battle. The time for talk and suppression will only end when you accept your opponent will only assent to the rule of law when compelled after a defeat on the battlefield.
Those are your choices. You are not dealing with rational people: Your leaders gleefully plan for war, but silence those who speak of their similarity with Hitler and Stalin.