Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Unlawful Presidential Programs: What they are and what needs to be done

Some in the White House and Congress believe they can outlaw discussions of the illegal activity.

There’s one small problem. We already know.

Helpful links on the Unlawful Presidential Programs

Here's a link to the Guide used to generate this report: [ Click ]

Compare the Dec 17 assessment with below:

* * *

Current report

The proposed statute banning discussion of illegal Presidential conduct is problematic. We do not discuss the constitutionality of this proposed statute. Rather, self-evidently it is contrary to the laws -- which prohibit illegal conduct – to criminalize discussion of the unlawful.

No executive order may contradict the supreme law of the land; nor many any statute credibly act as a bar to information about violations of the Constitution. To do so would require the public to have the double burden of making uninformed decisions; then being deprived of an input to remedies related to the abusive use of power.

Rather, the purpose of this note is to dig into the very information the President does not wish the public to know about: The nature of the illegal conduct, and the continuing activity related to suppressing knowledge of his widespread abuse of power.

* * *

Given the President’s failure to cooperate with lawful inquiry – and Congress’ assent to that non-cooperation – we are well positioned to make adverse judgments.

It is our view that the level of effort to maintain secrecy about illegal conduct is distracting the national leadership from it’s primary concern: Constitutional law.

* * *

We judge the media is well aware of the misconduct, and has been issued national security letters barring it from making public material information. It is our view that a cursory review of the NSLs would reveal a pattern of abuse, intrusion, and intimidation to gather information related to protected speech.

The government concern related to the speech is not related to criminal conduct, but related to content -- namely open discussion of the widespread abuses.

The voters are well poised to make additional adverse inferences.

* * *

Most problematic for the Executive branch are the widening fissures within the Senior Executive Service. They remain torn between the real threat of war crimes liability; and the duty they have to the Constitution to assert the rule of law.

They remain beyond hope. They have compromised themselves. No amount of negotiating can remedy their credibility problems. Moreover, they are not in a credible position to command any deference. We note with curiosity the frantic calls to private counsel outside the Executive branch.

* * *

War crimes are serious matters. The nation has no credible plan to adequately manage the first responders – now deployed in Iraq – when they return state side, and continue to harass civilian populations as they have done in Iraq.

There are real issues of negligent oversight. It is not clear American local government is sufficiently competent to mitigate the risk returning veterans pose to their communities. At worst, the military veterans have been recycled into the domestic rendition program, applying their skills learned in Iraq as contractors to unlawful kidnapped falsely accused Americans, subsequently removed to non-US locations. Regardless the excuses, Article 1 Section 8 and the laws of the United States apply regardless the location of the detainee and are applicable to US persons acting in the service of the United States. Any claim that the mistake was honest cannot stand as a credible defense to the apparent widespread abuse of American citizens.

* * *

The problem with the President’s unlawful program is that he himself has lost track of the details. If his arguments about the UAE are true – that he didn’t know – then we can reasonably make an adverse judgment that he’s equally disconnected from the unlawful conduct he directly ordered.

The President cannot say that the responsibility has been delegated; rather, it is the job of the so-delegated officials to continue providing evidence to the US Attorney for purposes of indicting the President.

At this juncture, failure of any of his co-conspirators to timely remove themselves is irrelevant; they have already permitted the unlawful consequences of that conduct to occur and have done little, if anything, to mitigate the foreseeable damages related to their unlawful conspiracy.

* * *

It appears as though there are several sub-committees and loose reporting channels inconsistent with statute. Congress appears to have a vague notion of what is occurring, but is reticent to find the details. On matters of criminal law they defer to the criminals, not the Constitution.

It also appears that there have been subsequent secrecy oaths that the participants know are incompatible with a Constitutional system; and at odds with their legal oath to that document.

Absurdly, the NSA compartmentalized programs are competing with other agencies and personnel for information; and have invariably targeted each other for surveillance. It is our view that the internal targeting triggered the NSA disclosures to the media – it was self-evident that things had gone too far, and further activity would, if not already, target executive department officials. It is possible that the White House “request for assistance” was the opportune time Do used to openly connect and reassure their undercover informants inside the Executive Branch.

* * *

Make no mistake, the JCS and White House staff genuinely fear leaks related to admissible evidence of their complicity.

Within recent days, a specific transmission has touched a nerve within the White House, prompting an extraordinary level of scrambling and coordination.

We can use message traffic as a proxy. Within plain view, it is striking the contrast between the Guantanamo message levels and those related to the Senate leadership.

  • A. Guantanamo message traffic was rather low, belated, and rather untimely – despite the briefings that message traffic had tapered off.
  • B. Conversely, Senator Frist's statements coincide with a reversals on policy, and policy concerns.

    Bluntly, First’s public “concerns” about the “wrong signal” over censure is at odds with the blasé attitude taken toward the abuse in Guantanamo. The problem isn’t the “distraction from other events” – rather, the opposite: The fact that there is no excuse not to focus on the impeachable offenses.

    The issue is simple. Between December 2005 and March 2006 something has radically shifted. In December, Congress was “concerned” about “unknowns” and delayed action on the Patriot Act; yet, despite “not knowing” the details – they voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

    Contrast this with the problem of “not knowing” the details related to the NSA activity, combined with the inaction over censure.

    The point is not lost on the public. The Congress has two standards on whether things will or will not get reviewed.

  • A. If the issue is related to authorizations of matters related to the President’s unlawful activity – the Congress is quick to act;

  • B. If the issue is related to evidence related to the President’s unlawful activity, the Congress is slow to act – censure impeachment -- but quick to make decisions that should be conditioned upon that evidence: The Patriot Act; at the same

  • C. If the issue is related to oversight, statutes, and laws Congress is slow to act if it relates to the unlawful activity; but quick to act if it relates to issues consistent with non-impeachable issues.

    The above patterns are consistent and cannot be explained as random policy. Rather, we judge the Congressional staffs and members of Congress have assented to the President’s rebellion against the Constitution.

    It remains to be understood what has been given, offered, or implied to arrive at outcomes consistent with:

  • 1. Delaying fact finding on impeachable offenses

  • 2. Accelerating timelines on matters recognizing unlawful statutes;

  • 3. Shifting the burden from the Constitution to trivial matters.

    The curious contrast is the disconnect on what information was or was not needed between the December 2005 and March 2006 decisions in re the patriot Act.

    The question remains: What specific event or agreements occurred subsequent toDecember 2005 which would explain the Congressional reversals on the NSA issue.

    * * *

    The problem the NSA and President have is the information is already out. Also, we know the NSLs and JTTF can and have used intimidation to silence the media.

    The question becomes what has specifically happened to warrant new measures, namely moving away from shadowy intimidation to outright, open calls to criminalize discussions of unconstitutional Presidential conduct.

    Putting aside the legal considerations – as the White House and Congress have come into habit of doing, this option – that of outlawing something that was Constitutional – was always an option. It remains to be understood what specifically triggered this new method.

    It appears the NSA and White House hope to bound the disclosures. This implies that the NSA activity is not isolated to the NSA, but crosses into multiple departments including the NSA, CIA, DoD, DoJ, and DHS. The trends are consistent: Poor training, blind deference to non-sense legal arguments, and management poorly equipped to justify legal challenges.

    In terms of evidence of the real scope of the unlawful conduct, the White House appears to be on the verge of having a major dam break. It appears a sufficient number of reporters in the non-American media are well placed to provide outlets for this information.

    The likely picture is telling. The overall efforts are extraordinary.

    * * *

    The issue is simply the abuse of power. The US is not willing to take responsibility for the abuse of power or violations of rights.

    The President’s unlawful programs have a common theme: They use resources without any relationship to reality; rather, they hope to shape reality.

    * * *

    The pre-9-11 activity is not consistent with the new efforts. Little is known – although much has been well speculated -- about the real US government pre-9-11 support activity: Training, exercises, warnings, rehearsals, manufacture of equipment, cover stories.

    On the other hand, the NSA issue offers a curious contrast. The trust between the SES and government workers has substantially collapsed; the workers doubt what they are told; and the SES cannot be confident the NSA planning will avoid detection.

    Despite planning-related information prior to 9-11, the government responses were abysmal.

    Let’s consider the NSA monitoring and Congress – government ignored NSA information before; why are the revelations over the NSA issue itself prompting a different reaction?

    * * *

    We judge the NSA’s senior SES know full well the nature of the cross departmental monitoring within the Executive Branch. Given this capability, the likely reason for the proposed – arguably unconstitutional -- statutory restrictions on discussion of the unlawful program is the SES no longer has confidence government employees will remain silent as they have over the 9-11 incident; and current promises and threats related to 9-11 are ineffectual.

    The problem the SES has is that it appears they no longer can be confident their cross-department monitoring

  • A. Goes undetected;

  • B. Is not already known,

  • C. Has targeted innocent American citizens, and/or

  • D. Is actively monitored from within, complete with a second line of evidence to the Department of Justice.

    Bluntly, they no longer have confidence in the security of their NSA communication systems; and cannot credibly believe that non-NSA resources are not being used to circumvent detection, or monitor the NSA itself.

    * * *

    The problem inside the NSA is instructive. It shows the President’s command authority within the military community is in doubt, further fueling the siege mentality triggering the unlawful activity before 9-11.

    There does not appear to be a credible Congressional check on the SES veracity problem. Moreover, there are multiple indicators that internal NSA reviews have failed to timely notify Congress of what should have been well known long ago.

    We question the credibility of the Congressional leadership when they say – despite the multiple audits – the multiple unlawful NSA programs were unknown. Rather, we judge the larger programs are well known to select members of Congress, but in a way that is inconsistent with statute.

    The imminent “ratification” of the FISA violations serves the interests of Congress. Bluntly, Congress appears to be on the receiving end of this ratification: A threat to jail those who discuss the unlawful activity essentially puts Congress in bed with the President’s rebellion against the Constitution.

    * * *

    The reason for this problem is noteworthy. During the Cold War the USSR was the “big scary enemy” and essentially acted as a check on government power – in general terms, that power was focused elsewhere, not primarily at the American public per se.

    America is adept – or was – at mobilizing for war; it was less adept at self-regulation and checks and balances on power as applied domestically.

    The end of the cold war has brought one problem, which brings us back to Iraq: American war fighters have been unleashed on their citizens and Congress has assented to excuses to violate the Posse Comitatus.

    It remains to be understood what Congress expect to happen once the voters imminently discover the truth. Again, we have eight [8] months until the election. Congress does not appear sufficiently adept to masquerade as a sheep when it has joined the Presidential pack of wolves.

    * * *

    There are multiple indications the Congress is well positioned to do something – but refuses to act. Congress, despite its poor manning, can still effectively direct staff studies and fact finding if the Congressional staffers choose to provide that leadership.

    There is no effective mechanism within Congress that is taking a broad view of the NSA issues. The very systemic problems related to the NSA unlawful conduct – in light of the larger number of unlawful executive programs – mirrors the defective oversight in Congress.

    Congress cannot see in itself – nor does it have the interest – to review its weaknesses as they mirror those in the NSA and other Presidential programs. Congress is being asked to do two things it has always been required to do – that it fails to admit it cannot do – oversee the executive, and oversee itself.

    * * *

    If we are to believe that the White House-Congressional crackdown is related to joint-branch concerns with disclosure, then there are lines of evidence – as was with the Downing Street Memo – that cannot be changed in 2006. The public can make plenty of adverse inferences.

    It remains to be understood the types of rehearsals the President used related to the unlawful activities, both in their execution, and in efforts to avoid detection.

    Regardless the legality of the activity, there remain 2005 talking points, schedules, planning documents, and other real evidence linked to the New York Times discussions and imminent revelations. It remains to be understood how these relate to the UAE effort.

    PDBs include details on potential issues, which would have been coordinated with various DoD-controlled commercial entities; and subsequently fed into the Joint Staff planning cells. This information can reasonably be expected to have passed through Senator Roberts, [R-Kansas, Chairman Senate Intelligence Committee]

    We judge the Congress knows – as do the military personnel in Guantanamo – that the executive claims are dubious.

    However, rather than end the absurdity – has the courts have failed to do in Guantanamo – Congress does what the President wants: Asserts that more illegal activity is justified because the “evidence is out there.” This argument fails.

    Despite violations of the laws, Congress knows the unlawful programs are not producing anything, but Congressional Members of Congress are unwilling to openly admit they know the unlawful activity is not justified.

    The purpose of the media blackout is not to protect any lawfully-controlled secrets. Rather, the sole objective is to delay Congressional action on impeachment – and public knowledge of information related to the dubious Congressional assent to this rebellion – until after the 2006 election.

    There is no reason to wait. Fortunately, the states have the option to mandate a solution with a state proclamation on impeachment.

    * * *

    Let’s consider a case in point. If the NSA activity – as measured by Padilla and Moussoui – were valid, then there would be no reason to engage in court manipulations, or ignore the rules of evidence.

    In both cases, despite the “big scary story justifying the unlawful activity,” the government’s cases have collapsed.

    There is one reason: The entire post 9-11 line of evidence is disconnected from reality; and there is insufficient evidence to conclude those so blamed are actually linked to bonafide threats, or current lawful conduct.

    Rather, using the Guantanamo model, the United States domestically has asserted unconstrained power outside the FISA statute because the “expected evidence” did not materialize, as what occurred in Guantanamo. The reason the “expected evidence” does not exist has nothing to do with the “insufficient methods” but that there is bluntly no problem warranting the intrusions or illegal activity.

    Simplistically, the entire United States is being treated as a rather early edition of a Guantanamo Bay: Accusations drive the law; and those who dare assert their rights are smacked down.

    The current NSA activity is not simply the tip of the iceberg; it is the was the tip of the dictatorship. Separate command authority and lines of communication have been established outside what the Constitution understands or recognizes.

    Congress and the SES know this.

    So do the voters.

    * * *

    The problem the Executive has is his separate reporting channels are not simply collapsing, they’re turning on him.

    They see the arguments do not stand any plausible foundation. For example, the original argument was that the NSA unlawful activity was justified to do monitoring; now the argument justifies not holding people accountable for that monitoring.

    Mind you, this sidestepping is happening at the very time that NSA has targeted other executive branches and the business community.

    * * *

    As of March 2006, it remains to be understood how effective the DoJ undercover informant program is. There are pattern analysis programs which have to be re-calibrated to identify the real issue: The new-illegal lines of communication.

    This is clearly not what we’ve been led to believe as the basis for the unlawful programs.

    But there are many anecdotes that shed light on the problem: Downing Street Memo, Hutton Report, MI6 Mass appeal, 9-11 intelligence warnings; and the links between MI6, NSA andGCHQ. The core issue of interest to the voters is the decision to assert raw power – regardless the law, and compel Congress to assent to that unlawful use of power.

    The States need to discuss the methods to lawfully tame the abusive power, not simply as a threat to the Constitution, but in the context of adequately vetting those inside the Executive department over issues of reliability and trustworthiness. The problem is similar to the post Civil War era. The States will have to discuss what standard of evidence or review will help decide whether someone has actually removed themselves from the rebellion against the Constitution.

    What is known is that there are many unlawful programs that have been approved. Despite violations of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, senior SES have assented to these unlawful programs have been mesmerized by technical non-sense, all the while failing to take a plain view of the statutes v. capabilities. There is no relationship, and this has been known since before 9-11.

    Simplistically, the unlawful programs have not been used to do the right thing. The resources have been used to assert power, not save lives; to justify illegal activity, not gather evidence. There is no link between the US combatant commander action and lawful war – they are in two separate universes. Congress knows this.

    The issue is not isolated to war fighters, but includes military contractors. Civilians may lawfully be held accountable for war crimes; and any agreement to “not enforce the law” is not in the public interest.

    The media also knows of the illegal activity, thus the pressure to outlaw discussions of the illegal activity. It remains to be understood whether there are bonafide “whistle blowers” inside the media who are looking for an outlet. They have overseas contacts, but have not used them for reasons to be understood. Perhaps they are over their head, as are the White House and DoJ counsel.

    * * *

    The unlawful activity appears to relate to detecting discussions of the war crimes, and efforts by CID and NCIS to block needed investigations into US military war crimes.

    Required reports to Congress and SecDef appear to have been shredded, and the Joint Staff and members of Congress appear to know full well this evidence has been destroyed.

    Small problem. GCHQ has copies of this evidence, and it remains outside the American’s control.

    For example, the stalled Phase II investigation does one thing: Points the spotlight at both the Executive and Legislature. The issue relates to the Inspector Generals and the failure of the Congress to order investigations as the code permits. These are issues of malfeasance.

    The issue doesn’t simply rest with members of Congress, but the American legal community. They are in a mess. The lawyers who knew full well what was going on are behind the legislation to prohibit discussion of their duplicity. It remains to be understood to what extent the legal community believed unlawful conduct – in violation of court orders – would go undetected, thereby compromising the rules of evidence.

    The unlawful programs appear to be related to detection of those who knew of the compromises, and relate to advance notices of audits and suppression of adverse
    information related to qualifications, training, internal controls, and prudent management.

    In other words, the true scope of the illegal Presidential-Congressional program relates to the larger pattern of malfeasance at the heart of the Katrina disaster. You’ll note that the Congress has yet to credibly account for the lessons – much less outline a plan going forward. This is by design. To admit the truth would get too close to the other unlawful Presidential programs related to protecting power, however incompetent the actors might be.

    * * *

    CIA director Goss is well positioned to do something. However, it appears he knew – as a Member of Congress -- far more of the problem than that one might expect.

    Goss appears to have been briefed on the nature of the unlawful activity, but failed to remove himself. He’s wearing the same hat, merely standing in the mirror.

    The unlawful Presidential programs are not linked to 9-11; they started well before 9-11. It was “permissible” to assent to this unlawful activity because it implied there would be additional power in the form of additional budget authority.

    Congress is not inclined to seriously assert subpoena power. It remains to be understood whether the State Attorney Generals will organize themselves to protect their citizens when the Congress fails.

    It remains to be understood to what extent the SETA contractors for the various unlawful programs are complicit in the design and management of these activities. At the heart of the issue is software which is not consistent with the law. A reasonable engineer should have known which checks to include, require, and verify. These required checks were never included.

    * * *

    Curiously, the flaws with the distractions help illuminate the scope of the unlawful activity and who is involved. Data transmission, sharing, and validation is routine; the problem this President has is he’s not dealing with bits of data, but human lives and the statutes.

    We judge the data mining programs are unrelated to bonafide surveillance programs nor do they have any relationship with bonafide national security interests. Rather, the data mining is used to detect and intimidate those who are aware of the scope of the illegal conduct.

    The rules of the game are simple: If Congress can get contracts for constituents, the President will continue singing the check; if Congress is quiet about the unlawful programs, the President is protected.

    At the heart of the unlawful Presidential programs are telecommunications contracts linked to the internet, and business relationships with emerging military technologies. No longer are these commands located overseas, but in unusual locations in the United States. Bluntly, military forces overseas have been brought back home, but they continue to treat the surrounding geography as it if were enemy territory.

    The territory has a name. It is called America.

    The forces overseas were willing to ignore customs, laws, and foreigners way of life; they have returned to do the same. This time the culture springs from the American Constitution.

    The classified programs have one goal. To hide the scope of the programs which are inhuman overseas, and would shock Americans if known. Guantanamo is but one example.
    The unlawful activity is disconnected from national security. Rather, it’s primary objective is to prevent detection of the unlawful activity. Nothing more.

    At the heart of the interest in the American economy, contracts, and revenues.

    * * *

    The unlawful programs are at odds with the President’s statements. They are not linked with national security; rather, their sole objective is to hide the scope of the violations of the law, which Congress should reasonably know is occurring. As long as Congress does not rock the boat, the funding for unlawful constituent contracts will continue.

    Investigations are shut down, evidence destroyed, and prudent management controls thrown out the window. The goal isn’t to do the right thing; but to hide the wrong things. Katrina popped the bubble. Software changes, however well compartmentalized, do no not solve problems – rather, the tools have to be used in a humane way. America has chosen to assert power inhumanely.

    * * *

    The current ruses and excuses ask the public to appeal to ignorance. Rather, the public can make adverse inferences.

    The objective of these ruses is to collect “information” related to “foreign threats” – but these threats are non-existent. Rather, they are manufactured to justify Congressional appropriations. These are not lawful because they are for unlawful wars.

    The goal of the unlawful activity is simply to feed the American economy. Some in Congress are more loyal to the economy and standard of living than to their oaths.

    The problem is that it is a false choice: One does not lose an economy if they assert the rule of law, but this is what many in Congress actually believe. Bluntly, they do not believe that Iraq can survive as a stable country under the rule of law. They miss Saddam, but they enjoy believing they are supporting the American economy with war contracts.

    “Lawful” appropriations translate into votes and sustained power of the existing Constitution.

    There is one problem.

    The States are the ones having to take the brunt of the abuse, and they see there is a disconnect between what this nation asserts as a standard, and what it actually does.

    At the heart of the problem is the Constitution is known to be defective: It does not prevent the consolidating of power, nor does it mandate that Congress do what must be done when the illegal conduct occurs: Assert the rule of law, not economic theory.

    * * *

    The specific programs in the unlawful Presidential portfolio are not surprising. They involve blackmail, rendition of Americans, and violation of every statute and Constitutional protection. It is done in secret because the potential 42 USC 1983 claims are enormous.

    The misconduct is simple: People assert power without regard to the statutes. They lie. A lot. And when they are caught, the find someone else to blame. They work in concert with their allies to get others to not press charges, suppress evidence, and hide the misconduct. They get paid a lot of money, but provide worthless service.

    And America’s debts are large, so large that America has a cash problem. It relates to the 1997 Asian Crisis and economic bubbles. America doesn’t like to know reality – so the unlawful programs are designed to paint a nice picture.

    * * *

    At the heart of the system – the full spectrum of the illegal activity is one simple thing: Power.

    Power that currently exists cannot survive the truth. At least, that’s what the leadership wants everyone involved to believe.

    There is one small problem. We already know. There’s nothing that can be hidden.

    Look around you. The system hasn’t collapsed. Rather, we’re stronger for knowing what is really going on.

    There: Now you know the real story: America can survive the truth.

    The way forward is to face the truth, openly talk about it, and move forward.

    America’s problem is it does not trust it’s people. There is one small problem: America’s leaders have not recently trusted the people to do what they do best: Be Americans, face reality, and get the job done.

    Leaders should lead based on reality; when you lie and create illegal programs to hide problems you do not solve the problem, you simply make yourself look stupid. You are arrogant in thinking that the public “can’t handle” the truth.

    * * *

    There is the international component to these illegal programs. When the conduct is overseas, nobody in America cared.

    The change is this time the unlawful activity – once well hidden in the distant marshes and bogs is now on the front pages of the American newspapers.

    It’s here. And what’s going on here has been going on overseas.

    Now Americans know how other nations feel when their lives are disrupted, intruded upon, and abused.

    What’s curious is that when a banana republic dictator “botches things up” as much as this regime has, the Americans invade. But what happens when that banana republic dictator in the White House?

    There’s nobody coming.

    Except for the States.

    * * *

    The current problem is denial. The illegal programs are designed to help people avoid reality, hide evidence, and intimidate others to assent to abusive use of power.

    In short, the abuses of the pre-1199 and pre-1773 eras have returned, but they are with 1s and 0s backed by the same brute force. It’s still the same, as annoying and outrageous as that which occurred in the colonies.

    The illegal programs are designed to motivate people to avoid reality; to assent to which should not be assented to; and to rationalize violations of the laws.

    We can do better.

    * * *

    It’s going to take some time to get confidence in the IG system again. Their reports simply touch the surface. They don’t address the unlawful conduct well known to the President.

    The reason for the unlawful activity – to suppress information – isn’t simply related to protecting the wayward from accountability; rather, its to keep the public in the dark.

    It makes little sense to have audit reports that aren’t given serious attention. It’s more absurd that bodies charged with detecting unlawful conduct are rewarded for ignoring and not reporting the conduct. These incentives need to be understood, and the States need to lawfully intervene to revoke the power that permits the abuses under this Constitution.

    We can only wonder how much information – that Congress should have reviewed – has not taken the time to gather, ask for, or follow-up on. It appears Congress has a sense of the problem, but is too close.

    What’s needed is some leadership. They are called US Attorneys. They have sharp daggers called indictments.

    * * *

    Your job is to stop living fear. The system is not collapsing. Rather, the system is waking up. People have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing.

    They confused their oath with their loyalty. Had American simply been honest with what was going on – the solutions would easily surface. But the lies have simply buried the truth, and delayed needed action.

    These are not impossible problems. Rather, we have impossible leaders facing hidden problems they do not really want to face.

    The RNC approach has been to make others solve the mess they make; the DNC’s problem has been that it refuses to call it like it is and talk directly to the voters like intelligent people.

    Have a conversation. That’s all. It’s not that hard.

    But stop your non-sense. The voters can see through it, especially when they have had to learn the laws better than you do.

    Just think, you might inspire the world to believe in America again.

    * * *

    It’s time to be clear with what is going on. This government uses its mistakes as a justification to engage in more unlawful activity. The basis for programs is based on non-sense.

    What’s needed are some real assessments of what is or is not lawful; and what is or is not required. The current process is devoid of scientific input and sound legal oversight; rather the allocations are based on the misinformed moving money for the misguided.

    America’s foreign standing is at risk. Not simply because we are corrupt, but because we squandered the good will we have for too long rested on.

    We won WWII and a few skirmishes since then. It is 2006, not 1946.

    We need leaders who will lead, not assent to this lawlessness.

    We have no moral foundation because we have no legal foundation.

    The voters can see through the non-sense. We do not have a Commander in Chief. We have a war criminal.

    * * *

    We might be on the right way if America was as serious about America’s rule of law as it professes to have for Iraq.

    The problem is America likes to talk about principles and victory, but doesn’t have a plan to practice those principles to sustain our 1776 victory.

    We’re lost because our nation has chosen to assent to a dictator, while pretending nobody notices the smoldering Constitution.

    America likes to talk about the “will of the Iraqi people.” The will of the American people is clear: Our Constitution.

    It’s time for America to remain engaged by engaging with the rule of law.

    America knows what is to be done. Congress and the RNC do not wish to face it: The President needs to be lawfully removed from office.

    The issue isn’t what is or isn’t in the best interests of the country. The issue is what is in the interests of our right to be free from abusive power.

    We are Americans.