Constellation: Keisler Up For More Pumelling

WSJ reports Keisler is up for the 4th Circuit, having already been pummeled and rejected.

Is DoJ spending time on FISA warrants? No, they're surfing the internet: here

Do DoJ staff attorneys have the law on their mind? No, they have groins.

* * *

Alert: AT&T, Filibuster Nominee

Keisler, involved in this AT&T illegal activity, has already had his nomination rejected once before.

The Keisler confirmation hearings will be a test of how seriously the Senate, as it failed to do with Hayden, will engage in oversight. As we saw with the Specter-Cheney spat, the Senate is not credibly asserting power, merely going through the motions. That is not leadership, but negligence of one's lawful obligation to protect the Constitution.

We've learned alot since December 2005, when the NYT officially reported the illegal NSA activity, which Keisler should well understand. We need to get a straight story on the DoJ OPR blocked investigation, how Keisler fits into the illegal government activity.

The voters should carefully watch the Senate confirmation, inter alia:

Is the Senate serious about its 5 USC 3331 oath to the Constitution;

Is there sufficient investigation of the abusive DoJ approaches to the American public on the NSA warrantless surveillance and DHS warrantless interrogations;

What method, if any, does the Senate use to check the abusive DoJ; are the threats to withhold funds serious;

How effectively does the Senate screen those like Keisler who show a demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and notion of rule of law; and

Does the Senate ask probing follow-up questions related to the NSA activity, problems with DoJ ORP, the lack of ABA-related peer review investigations by DoJ OPR, stonewalling into the NSA illegal activity.

* * *

The Supreme Court Hamdan opinion is timely: Keisler's work product is now visible. The lessons shed light on the thinking in DoJ and the Executive branch on issues of power, statutes, and legal obligations.

During confirmation, the Senate to review the AT&T matters. It is irrelevant that Keisler may likely argue that he cannot comment on ongoing litigation; Keisler's legal argumetns in Hamdent match the thinking on the illegal NSA activites.

Keisler's Hamdan argumements were struck down:

Powers of the President during war time;

Whether the court does or does not have a role in assenting to the rule of law;

What is to be done when the three branches of government defy their oath, and refuse to check abuse of power;

Where there are procedures in place to ensure compliance with the review requirements.

* * *

There is little reason to have confidence Keisler is going to be independent, or will truly check power. On all counts, the Hamdan case showed us that the entire Keisler legal argument was twisted and perverted. We can expect the same non-sense while he's on the bench.

Keisler assents to abuse. An independently minded officer of the court would have resigned long ago from the cuss pool inside DoJ. Keisler has freely chosen to bathe in that cuss pool.

Per Federalist 78, the likes of Keisler were intended to be reviewed, carefully watched, and subject to impeachment for refusing to assert the judicial oaths and protect the Constitution.

* * *

The Senate has not been given the courtesy to make fully informed decisions on the illegal NSA-DoJ activities. The courts have been ignored and sidestepped. Although Keisler knows the laws, he has defied them, and refused to remove himself from the illegal planning activity in DoJ.

Rather, he does not respect the system of checks and balances. He respects consolidating power, and is not a credible nomination for the bench.

* * *

Keisler is at the center of the disaster in Iraq. His legal arguments have inspired the insurgency. Iraq has proven a disaster. This President can be expected to make absurd decisions to ensure reckless policies as we have seen in Iraq are rewarded, not punished. This Executive cannot be trusted to make informed decisions about the legal interests of the United States.

The Senate is not interested in close oversight or challenging the disaster in Iraq. The Iraq WMD issues have never been resolved. Yet, Keisler while in DoJ continues to fend off needed oversight of the failed campaign in Iraq.

But not to be outdone, the Executive's abysmal performance is inciting the Taliban to stand up to a weakened America. Keisler has been part of the legal community that destroyed the Constitution, undermined American prestige, and is now the target of battle. He freely chose to embrace what should be rejected. For that, America should reject him.

* * *

The DoJ legal crew warrants close scrutiny, and does not deserve any deference. Keisler had the choice whether he did or did not want to assert this legal non-sense; he's also freely taken an oath to the US Constitution; and while in the DoJ he's also had the chance to make comments to the DoJ OPR.

The ABA has a known oversight problem, and they are not sufficiently adept to set a proper tone. I have no confidence in the ABA in effectively conducting peer reviews on Keisler. [ Details: Expectations of ABA Leadership Not Met ]

I have no confidence Keisler takes his ABA-related obligations seriously or will fully implement the Cannons of Judicial Conduct. His track record on fairly "quaint" bar association rules prove wanting.

* * *

Keisler isn't merely a symptom of a bad system run amok, but a culture that defies the rule of law. He is part of the problem, not the solution.

Review closely the lessons of Charles I in England, and you will see what is at the heart of the abuse which Keisler believes is warranted. [ Ref ]

The risk of having the likes of Keisler on the bench is that this Executive's abuse of power will be endorsed and ratified. Keisler's accomplishments in DoJ include taking American Jurisprudence back to the pre-Magna Charta days. Ref ]

It remains to be seen whether Keisler is allowed to continue to perpetuate an abusive system from within, or whether that system ultimately is defeated on the battlefield. With Keisler's nomination, this American government continues to lay the foundation for the 4th Reich. [Ref ]

* * *

We need some answers as to which internet surfing he's been doing while in DoJ. Here are some sample problems that show us the DoJ Staff attorneys are not doing their job, and spending time on non-DoJ issues. [More ]

This comes at a time when Gonzalez said that the DoJ attorneys were "too busy" doing other things and couldn't follow FISA.

Gonzalez statements not only amount to alleged perjury, it is utter non-sense. The IPs have been traced to the attorneys that Gonzalez said were "too busy" to get warrants, thereby raising serious questions about
- the excuses Gonzalez has provided;
- the adequacy of Keisler's supervision;
- the unlawful practices Keisler has embraced; and
- why we should believe Keiser can competently be expected to do what is expected of him.

Keisler has a problem with the ABA rules of professional conduct, and is willing to let AT&T-related client loyalties through Sidley Austin taint his efforts directed at the States. This does not inspire confidence in his independence; rather he remains loyal to illegal, reckless disregard for the Constitution and laws of the land. He has no excuse, and refused to remove himself from these illegal acts.

Keisler freely chose to remain associated with the DoJ-NSA illegal activity. A true legal professional would have resigned, but Keisler chose to remain, refusing to reuse himself despite the obvious conflicts between DoJ-Sidley-AT&T.

* * *

Keisler is well interwoven with the arrogant violations of Geneva. In Hamdan, Keisler attempted to subvert the Judicial system. Again, he's chosen to align himself with the very illegal conduct that the Third Reich's Goering was indicted for: Violating the laws of war.

If you want someone on the court that is going to defy the Constitution, you have a problem. Keisler is not your solution.

Keisler is not acceptable and should be investigated by DoJ OPR for his alleged violation of public statutes, and complicity with the illegal NSA activities and broader warrantless interrogations under DoJ-DHS control.

Keiser is in the center of this. His conduct needs to be investigated. I expect the list of questions which Gonzalez hasn't responded to, be thrown back at Keisler.

We need to get a straight story over the Chief Justice Roberts Ethics investigation before we proceed with Keisler's nomination. There are serious legal issues which warrant public understanding, discussion, and debate. There appears to be a larger problem which needs to be reconciled well before we consider Keisler.

If the Grand Jury chooses to review this matter, consider the steps that you as a Grand Jury Member can now take during your deliberations to have your report made public. Ref

* * *

We need a straight story from Keisler his connection through Sidley Austin to AT&T; and a thorough discussion with the Senators on the Hamdan arguments he's provided. His entire legal theory has been discredited, and raise serious questions as to his personal choices to use or not use his legal background.

It is not credible that "he was just working for the client," as his real client is the US Constitution. He has mixed loyalties, convoluted thinking, and clearly assent to violations of the law for "other objectives."

When given a choice between the law and power, he put his loyalty to an illegal agenda above both. This approach is from the Iran-Contra days, which Cheney and Addington have infected the entire federal government. Make no mistake, the same non-sense this leadership in DoJ used is well linked with the Iran-Contra Minority Report. [Ref ]

Consider the larger climate of abuse, intimidation, and arrogance which this DoJ has fostered. We have combat troops in Iraq making by-name threats against Americans who are engaging in Constitutionally protected activity. [ Ref ]

Keisler is closely associated with this criminal enterprise inside DoJ. There is no merit to any comment that the issues have been investigated; DoJ OPR has been denied any power to review the legal issues related to the unlawful NSA activities.

We can only speculate what types of "emergencies" Keisler, if on the bench, will assent to as the Executive grabs, then abuses more power and violates more rights. [ Ref ]

Hamdan is merely the first stab at the dying RNC corpse.

* * *

It is irrelevant which legal peers give him accolades. His peers were the ones who blew the horns celebrating abusive treatment, illegal war, and violation of the laws of our land.

It is irrelevant his academic credentials or peer ratings. They are dubious, as evidenced by his reckless decision to remain associated with those who consistently choose to freely defy the Constitution.

This Administration, and Kreisler’s legal arguments, have been used as the basis to violate the law, treaties, and Constitution.

Yet, Keisler has an obligation, through Article 82 of the 1929 Geneva Convention, to ensure that ground commanders fully enforce Geneva. Kreisler’s comments and legal arguments defy any confidence he's doing what he should: Ensuring Geneva is fully followed. I see no evidence that Keisler takes this legal obligation seriously.

He cannot be trusted to do what should be done to protect the Constitution. Rather, he can only be trusted to commit to an agenda of deception, intimidation, and selective reading of the case law. His demonstrated performance does not inspire confidence in his thinking, judgment, or his leadership potential.

* * *

SWIFT is the needed information this country needs to ask the right questions:

What did Keisler know about the use of data to target Americans for warrantless interrogations;

Why is Keisler associated with an organization that chooses to defy the courts;

Why should we believe Keisler is serious about the importance of the judicial system given his decision, and alleged agreement to engage in the conspiracy, to ignore the courts on the NSA-FISA issues.

What role did Keisler have in intimidating the phone companies, or suggesting there would be adverse consequences if they did not participate in the illegal NSA activity?

What roles does Keisler have in the efforts to target Americans for their vocal opposition to what is an illegal occupation, now turned disaster, in Iraq?

Keisler's conduct is at odds with the "concern" this Administration would have us believe they have. This leadership, as does Keisler, will say whatever they think the Senate will digest, without regard to what the Senate has sworn an oath: The Constitution.

Where there are not answers, we can make adverse inferences.

This Administration does not wish to cooperate with lawful fact finding, oversight, or credible defense and protection of the Constitution.

We may reasonably assign those attitudes to those who freely choose to act as their agents and staff attorneys in the Department of Justice.

* * *

Keisler does not deserve to be on the bench. Further, there needs to be a line of questions that raises the real issue: Should Keisler be permitted to practice law.

In my view, given his reckless disregard for Geneva, and outright threats to State Attorney Generals to not pursue the AT&T litigation, Kreisler’s got some major problems related to his professional oath of office, and commitment to the judicial system.

We are a system of laws, not a nation that should be rewarded for absurdity.

Keisler remains a threat to the US Constitution and should be filibustered before the Senate. If approved, he should be closely monitored for purposes of impeachment, removal from Judicial office, then ultimately disbarred.

* * *

Let's consider the specific Hamdan language as it relates, by extraction, to Keisler's role in the AT&T-FISA litigation in DoJ.

Each of theses issues are matters of Constitutional law, which Keisler on the 4th Circuit Appeals is expected to adjudicate, not ignore. This is merely a list of issues which surfaced in Hamdan which Keisler needs to discuss, as they related to the warrantless interrogations of American citizens:

Why are witnesses being denied access to information?

Why is it permissible to exclude evidence form defendants?

Why are treaty obligations being ignored?

Why are clearly established, legal requirements being abrogated?

Why are people being detained without charges being brought against them?

Why are clearly established court requirements getting explained away?

What is the basis to invent illusory charges that have no legal foundation?

What is the basis to depart from judicial procedures?

What basis is there to believe that there will be suitable checks on sweeping, unfounded, and unconstitutional claims of Executive power?

What specific excuses is the American judicial system willing to entertain to deny rights, not prevent the abuse of power or otherwise not enforce what should be enforced: Treaties, statutes, and the Constitution?

What role did Keisler have in the planning of various options that would be employed to circumvent the court and Congress?

What is the basis to assert that any court cannot review a matter related to a judicial issue?

How does any legal "expert" claim that the court can credibly denied any power to review or not review whether an issue is or is not constitutional?

Which fabricated emergencies is Keisler willing to embrace as an excuse to not assert judicial power over either Congress or the President?

What is the basis to assert that the Executive has exclusive power to do anything, when the Constitution clearly divides power?

How can Keisler argue that treaty obligations are exclusively under the purview of the Executive, when it is Congress that has the power to ensure those treaty obligations are preserved, and the rights promised are protected?

What jurisdiction is the Executive claiming is exclusive, but has no credible basis in law, treaty, or other governing standard?

Why are Congressional requirements, that Executive conduct complies with the law, ignored by the Executive and not the subject of something DoJ staff attorneys ensure is respected?

Why should the public have confidence in Keisler's role, opinions, and contribution to the reckless DoJ violations of rights, where there is no constitutional basis to expand any Presidential power beyond what is only delegated in the Constitution?

What is the basis to assert that the executive's actions are permissible when they are devoid of legal foundation?

What role did Keisler have in supporting aggressive war in Iraq?

Why should the public believe the arguments provided to justify why the Executive is claiming needs to be done?

Given the reckless, negligent disregard for the Constitution and laws of the land, why should we believe any of the convoluted arguments the government is providing as a justification for this conduct?

Why should the public believe that the Executive will follow the law; or conversely, what basis is there for anyone to believe that the things the Executive is saying he is or is not doing are lawful?

Why should we believe that the procedures DoJ-NSA use in the 45 day review, outside FISA, approach the standard of review of the court?

If the FISA-NSA-DoJ reviews are "just as good" as any court, why is the President unwilling to provide this information to the court, as is required under FISA?

how can anyone in DoJ say, "The FISA court cannot be trusted," when the conduct which violates the law is sanctioned by DoJ Attorneys like Keisler?

What is the basis to say, "The FISA court cannot be trusted to keep secrets," when it is the DoJ OPR that is denied the needed access to find out who is using secrecy to hide evidence of criminal activity inside DoJ?

What is the state of mind and thinking of a DoJ Attorney when they argue that defendants in any trial cannot review the evidence being used to hold them without charge;

How does one reconcile the clear requirement that there be bonafide charges based on evidence, and the ability of a defendant to defend themselves, with the perverse notion that the laws of war requiring this standard be ignored?

How does any attorney within DoJ credibly look at themselves in the face when they are contributing, through the reckless disregard of rights of innocent people, to the insurgency in Iraq?

Do the DoJ Staff attorneys not comprehend that their reckless disregard for the laws of war, Constitution, and other international treaties is directly making the United States citizen less safe, and more vulnerable to attack by those who can lawfully reciprocate against America for abuses committed against anyone?

What is the basis for any attorney in DoJ to assert that precedent from a period before a specific statute is or is not relevant; while the subsequent legislative and treaty changes after that precedent expanded the legal obligations of the Executive to do or not do something?

What is the basis to rely on exceptions to rules which are from precedents before the Acts of Congress and treaty obligations?

We are in 2006; where does one draw the line on exigency: What standard, what measure, what indicator is there that the exigency is not present, and that claims of exigency are merely ruses to justify abuse of power and violation of rights?

Why should the public have any confidence that any DoJ staff attorney is serious about the law, when the record before is clearly one of finding absurd excuses to not ensure the laws are followed?

A plain reading of the statutes and treaties makes it clear that there are specific obligations on the government to do and not do things. The arguments Keisler's provided demonstrate no comprehension that he's willing to embrace the law as it is, but merely twisted the law to support illegal activity. Why should the public have any confidence that Keisler is able to read a statute as they are, not as he wishes them to be?

When reviewing a case for jurisdiction, Keisler's arguments in Hamdan show he's unwilling to recognize the relevance of the treaty obligations. The oath includes an obligation to enforce all treaty obligations.
- Why should the public believe that Keisler takes his oath to the US Constitution seriously;
- What treaty obligations and other statutes does Keisler know DoJ-NSA are violating, but the NYT is being targeted to remain silent about?
- What government or non-government activity is Keisler aware of that takes illegally obtained information, then uses that information to target American civilians for warrantless surveillance and conduct warrantless interrogations?
- What role did Keisler play in creating the contracting vehicles that would transfer private data from AT&T to any commercial or government facility for analysis, even though there was no bonafide warrant to engage in this activity?

The AG has lied to Congress and not fully cooperated with ongoing investigations into the illegal NSA activity. Based on the DOJ OPR investigation that was blocked, there's only one person that could ensure the DoJ OPR could not do their job: The attorney general. Given Gonzalez' veracity problem, why should we believe that Keisler reasonably relied upon the Attorney General's assertions and certifications about whether warrants were or were not required?

What is the basis for anyone to believe that Keisler is serious about his oath to the US Constitution, all treaties, and the ABA professional responsibilities when:
- Clear treaty obligations are ignored;
- Criminal activity within DoJ and NSA is not reported;
- He remains connected to that activity;
- He has not removed himself;
- He continues to provide in court arguments which are wholly inconsistent with the US Constitution, case law, governing law, and treaty obligations?

It is the responsibility of legal counsel to ensure, through Article 82 of the 1929 protocol, that the laws of war are enforced. There is also an attorney duty under the ABA rules to remove themselves from illegal activity; and report misconduct and illegal planning for illegal activity to the DoJ OPR. Why should the public believe that Keiser is serious about his obligations given inter alia, Keisler's :

- Decision to remain attached to the illegal DoJ planning;
- Refusal to fully inform DoJ OPR of his personal knowledge of the illegal procedures which defy statute and treaty obligations;
- Continued presence with DoJ Staff attorneys who continue to provide material support for the illegal Executive activities;
- Assent to having DoJ OPR blocked from reviewing the matters he personally knows about in re the NSA-AT&T illegal activity and coordination; and
- Refusal to resign from what is otherwise an ongoing, illegal criminal enterprise within DoJ?

When we have a notion of "rule of law", how does Keisler decide what is to be reviewed: Which treaties are or are not ignored; which Congressional statutes are not included?

Consider. Keisler's construction as to what is or is not in the "rule of law" bucket.
- How does Keisler explain why his arguments have been wholly devoid of any credible consideration for the requirements in clearly promulgated treaty obligations?
- Why should we believe that Keisler is serious about the nation of "rule of law," given his reckless disregard for this DoJ OPR reporting requirements; the obligation to remove himself from illegal planning; and the ABA reporting requirement to not engage in illegal planning for unlawful activity?

Read more . . .

SCOTUS Nomination Filibuster

It's time to plan for the showdown with the RNC in the Senate.

We will soon have to consider a new Supreme Court Justice.

Do not wait.

Need to plan for the Filibuster.

Don't want to hear this, "Gosh, what will filibustering accomplish."

Answer: It's going to save our way of life.

If the RNC threatens to take away filibuster, let them: Then the RNC will not have the power to filibuster any law which bans the RNC.

Make the RNC be abusive before the election. Accelerate the votes, force them to commit on the rule of law before the election.

Force the RNC to vote on issues related to "investigations". If the RNC wants to vote on a law that is going to outlaw something that is protected, then attach amendments to compel investigation of the full issues, to include the Illegal Activity.

They may be in charge, but it is not time to roll over. It is time to make them be abusive so the world sees what is going on.

If you cower out of fear of "what may happen in the future," then you have already lost your freedom.

Use it now, and let your friends know that you're going to lawfully assert yourselves. If you refuse to do so now, you're going to look back and say, "Why didn't I do all that I could?"

Get with your friends, organize, and learn the lessons of the failed Alito Filibuster.

Where Congress refuses to protect the Constitution, We the People will have to display the needed leadership.

Get ready.

Read more . . .

Congress Unconstitutionally Usurps Judicial Power

Congress does not have any power to make conclusions of law.

This is an exclusive Judicial Power, which neither the Executive nor the Congress has been delegated any power to exercise.

* * *

The following comment is meaningless:

(2) finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program; Ref

Here's what we don't know, and the courts have not reviewed:

How the information gleaned from the data mining is subsequently used to target Americans for illegal monitoring and warrantless interrogations;

Which other sources and methods are used to illegally thwart the express requirements in the Constitution.

* * *

Congress has no lawful power or authority to "review" the "legality" of the program. This is an exclusive judicial function.

The sense of Congress is meaningless, however telling. It shows Congress has usurped judicial power, and wants the voters to believe something that is not true.

Congress does not have a presumption of Constitutionality. Rather, when Congress usurps judicial power and "makes findings" that something is or isn't legal, that is meaningless.

No voter should have any confidence in this Congress. It defers to the illegal war, continues to appropriate funds for unlawful things, refuses to investigate, then adjudicates whether something is or isn't legal.

* * *

This is related and warrants a comment.

Even if Congress makes a "rule" that the courts cannot do something, what is Congress thinking in asserting that the Court cannot review the Constitutionality of something?

Marbury is the precedent for Judicial review; and it is in the Constitution: The Courts have the sole power to adjudicate. Congress may not make a law that strips the Judiciary of this power.

Not only can Congress not lawfully pass this bill; there is nothing within that bill or any other Constitutional provision that would recognize the bill, or otherwise prohibit the Courts from striking down the bill.

Overall, any Congressional claim that they will make rules that will ignore the laws and defy the courts is not to be taken seriously. Indeed, if the Congress chooses to do this, we have to ask, "Why bother?" Congress and the Executive have already shown they will ignore the FISA and Constitution; there's no need for them to put in writing what they're already doing.

Rather, the issue is why they are bothering to codify unconstitutional conduct for the courts to adjudicate.

* * *

Flashback . . .

Ref

Consider the DoD approach to Iraqi contracts. Recall how DoD excluded people from the contracting arena because they would not bend to the whims of the Executive.

The lesson is that the Executive, when it fires the experts, will attempt to construct a program that doesn't follow the law, but they'll do their best to follow the checklists.

Sort of. They got it really wrong.

Not only do they ignore the law, but they can't be relied upon to independently conduct their contract planning without help.

* * *

Back to the Congressional "big plan" to make rules that defy Geneva . . .

Consider:

A. Is the Congressional proposal credible: Mixed signals.

B. Does it have the force of law: No.

C. What is to be done if the courts refuse to (timely) strike down what is Unconstitutional: Broaden Constellation to gather facts for Judicial impeachment, per Federalist 78.

The Congress, if it is asserting this power to make laws that violate Geneva, will send a clear signal to the world: The US is not serious about honoring agreements to remain civil. The implications are serious: [ Click ]

Because of reckless leadership within the Executive Branch, the US is on the run in Afghanistan and Iraq. The world sees that the US is not all-powerful, just all-bungling.

The world now knows it can unite against the reckless, arrogant American bullies and there's nothing that the US can do about it.

The US has exhausted the goodwill it once had in the wake of 9-11.

* * *

Except for a few pockets of individual integrity, Congress has no credibility, nor real leadership. There is little catalyst for Congress to rise to the occasion, protect the Constitution and assert their oath.

They simply rely on more non-sense from the White House propagandists, continuing in their quest for excuses to not do what should be done.

Given all that is going against Congress, why are they doing what they're doing? It appears Congress believes they can fool the voters.

They have made a grave error. The voters have figured this out. Congress is part of the problem, and they are engaging in shams, not asserting their Constitutional obligations or oaths.

We the People will have to plan for what should be done, then make it happen. If We fail, others are prepared to make it happen.

Read more . . .

4th Reich

It is time to choose.

* * *

If the US Congress decides to make rules that "permit" violations of Geneva, then that is serious.

Geneva requires the following:

- A method to review whether people are or are not reasonably being treated; and

- A method to ensure that the statutus of a prisoner is based on reality, not desire.

If the US Congress choose to create rules which defy Geneva, and keep people in limbo, then the message is clear: The US is not serious about waging lawful war.

It is a serious matter when Congress and members of the American legal community would assent to illegal war. Even if the US chooses to remove itself from Geneva, the Congress is incorrectly assuming that the US will forever win all land-air-sea battles.

If Congress chooses to make rules which permit anyone to be mistreated, then under the laws of war and reciprocity, Congress is exposing all US civilians to lawful retaliation.

The US Government, in defiance of the Constitution, cannot guarantee that its citizens will be safe, or that the Constitution will be preserved. Rather, by creating rules that permit uncivil conduct, the US Congress is fueling the very forces that threaten the US Constitution.

Congress, if it passes rules permitting uncivil conduct against anyone for whatever reason, is communicating clearly: "We assent to the fuel we are providing to those who one day may prevail over us, and impose terms of surrender. Those terms may not be pretty."

* * *

Recall the legacy of Nuremburg. It was the winning combatant that prevailed in the court room, deciding that the abrogated treaties remained in force.

If Congress chooses to abrogate treaty obligations that is one thing. But the American public must accept that Congress is making this choice freely on the naive assumption that Americans will forever prevail in all battlefield engagements, and never be in a position to be held accountable for abrogating any treaty.

The 3rd Reich, as does this US Government, assumed it could abrogate any treaty, and do what it wants. The Third Reich is over.

Nuremburg shows us that the defeated enemy can be held to account for abrogating a treaty, or making rules which permit uncivil conduct.

The lesson of Nuremburg is simple: If you abrogate a treaty that otherwise prevents uncivil conduct, then when you lose on the battlefield the winning army may impose consequences as if that treaty remained in full force.

* * *

The issue Americans must ask: Given the setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, can we be sure that the US citizens will never be forced to account for any illegal warfare?

Despite the reckless, negilgent prosecution of this war, no American can be sure this leadership will do what is lawful, prudent, or will fully protect the Constitution. They do abuse power, violate rights, and refuse to assent to the rule of law. The world notices. They continue to plan to impose civility where the American government chooses to do otherwise.

Hitler learned he was wrong. It remains to be seen whether this Congress will learn from history, or require defeat on the battlefield to impose civility. There is no magic shield to America that prevents the world from agreeing to organize, and impose terms of civility which this Congress refuses to enact.

To protect the Constitution, one cannot permit things which inspire those who have no choice but to destroy what permits uncivil conduct.

Protecting the Constitution means refusing to permit barbaric treatment, especially when the Congress can no longer guarantee to Americans they are on the right side of the law or history.

Read more . . .

Constellation: Integrity

A few observations.



Integrity is consistency between actions, values, words, intentions, and results.

Here are some concerns:

1. Individuals taking links from other sites, and not citing them. Then taking credit for "research skills." Then using that "research capability" as a basis to assert/imply, "Because I have reviewed this matter, I conclude this about this person and their reliability."

2. Arguments made on the assertion that something is or isn't true, yet providing no coherent argument to justify confidence in that conclusion. Upon further examination, the issue changes from whether or not the person, for whatever means, can or cannot make an argument, to whether the impartial adjudicator-audience does or does not "understand."

3. Public assertions of standards, rebukes on others, all the while refusing to discuss, acknowledge, or accept that one has failed to meet that standard. Upon examination, the issue changes from whether they are or not reliable, to whether the public at large does or does not "appreciate" their contribution, however disconnect that may be from reality.

4. Public accusations of wrongdoing, confirmed by documents that there was wrongdoing, yet excuses why that documented wrong doing is or isn't relevant. Rather, the discussion-argument turns into whether the "form" and "content" about the original misconduct is or isn't correct. Rather than distance oneself from that misconduct, the chorus scream, "But the messenger is incorrect."

* * *

Measures of Integrity:

A. If you are going to take links from another site, and you do not wish to cite your sources, that is fine. The public can find out whether you are or are not really a good researcher.

B. If you are going to take credit for "research" that someone else has or hasn't done, but refuse to correct that misperception by others, then the issue isn't whether you do or do not have research skills/give credit, but whether you do or do not correct misperceptions that others have.

C. If you are going to point to anyone as having certain qualifications, but have not made a thorough examination of their work products, then your assertions as to their reliability are dubious.

D. If you publicly assert discretion on whether certain standards of conduct are or are not acceptable, but then turn around and violate that rule you impose on others, then you have no credibility.

E. Those who assert that someone is or isn't violation a standard -- that may or may not be a reasonable standard -- then you have no credibility when you violate that standard.

F. If you are attempting to make an argument, and your argument fails, then you have to admit that your argument has no merit. If you choose to change the subject from your failed argument to whether or not someone doesn't understand, then you have no credibility.

G. If you are going to assert a conclusion, but are unable to point to reasonable arguments to support that contention, then your argument is invalid.

H. If you choose to assert that because you have certain credentials or experience that your argument should be accepted without examination, then you are asking the world to embrace what is dubious over other options. Whether something else is or isn't dubious is irrelevant.

I. Those who assert that the particular governing body, rule making authority, oversight, or other institution can or cannot do something must consider not only whether that conduct is or isn't legal; but whether the conduct, if fully enacted, is or is not consistent with the objective of your oath.

J. If an institution, for whatever reason, decides that it can create rules that defy the norms of civility, then it is absurd to argue, if your oath is to the Constitution, that the conduct that the engage in is permissible, while at the same time ignoring the consequences of their misconduct, and the threat that that misconduct puts on the very document you have sworn an oath to uphold.

K. If you have freely taken an oath to uphold a document, a set of freely chosen professional standards, yet your conduct is in contravention with the intent of those standards -- to ensure stability, reliability, and civility -- then your conduct, for whatever reason, that is uncivil cannot be deemed to be appropriate.

L. It is irrelevant whether the rules, oversight, laws, standards, or other monitoring entities will or will not find out. If you make statements that are not truthful, disconnect from reality, or linked with unsound propositions, then your argument is disconnected from what should be reasonably be expected of you.

M. If you have a track record of faulty arguments, poor research, bad fact checking, or permitting misrepresentations to flourish, then this is your issue. It is inappropriate for the public to be compelled to accept that you do or do not have some level of reliability, while the plain reading of your conduct is in stark contrast with the image you desire others to have.

N. If you assert that you do or do not have a capability, but fail to offer that capability when it is requested; then turn around and ask the public to not notice the inability to perform, then you have fooled only yourself.

O. If you would like the world to believe that you have a capability to do something, but the facts and research do not support that contention or capability, then it is not appropriate to lecture others about their perception problem. Rather, the issue is with you: Your original misrepresentation; and your failure to correct that misrepresentation in others; and the subsequent reliance others had on that misrepresentation. This is called fraud.

P. If you have the education, experience, and talent to justify public confidence, but are incapable of performing at that level, cannot work without supervision, or are otherwise incapable of being relied upon to independently act unless that supervision is there, then you have failed in self-governance.

Q. If you have an obligation to be civil, as affirmed with an oath, that you be civil and protect a specific Constitution, then any argument, action, or other momentum that may jeopardize that document -- but which you refuse to challenge -- implicates you in having failed to assert your oath.

R. If the laws of the land dictate that the Constitution shall be protected, then any argument you make that permits that document to be destroyed, put at risk, or otherwise explained away does not inspire confidence you take your oath seriously.

S. If you point to the flawed arguments of others as the basis to rally public attention, or assert a conclusion, yet you make the same failed argument on a separate matter, then you have failed to credibly distinguish yourself from those you say are a threat.

T. If you point to someone's conduct -- however real or imaged -- as a basis to rebuke them; but then engage in that conduct, however explainable it may be, then you have failed to justify confidence in your original conduct-rebuke.

* * *

Remedies

If you do not wish to cite sources, then do not take credit for research you have not done.

If you have not done research into someone's background, then do not make public assurances as to their reliability.

If you have a standard that warrants rebuking others, then you must assent to that standard being applied to you.

If you say that the public must do or not do something, but then you engage in conduct which violates that standard, then you must decide how you will resolve the original rebuke, and subsequently accept consequences for your personal violation.

If you have a failed argument and must rely on non-sense to justify confidence in that faulty assumption, then own up to that.

If you have inflated your capability, and cannot provide the service you say you can, then you must resolve this with those who have relied on your misrepresentation.

If you have promised others that you will do or not do something, but fail to provide that, then you owe a resolution to those who relied on your promise.

If you say that someone can or cannot do something, then you take responsibility for when they do or not do what you previously stated.

If you want to make an assurance about someone's reliability, you must qualify your statement as to whether or not you have done a thorough review, and provide a demonstration as to the basis for your conclusion. Conversely, when others provide information that is not consistent with your conclusion, you have to account for that, and include that it your statement on the other party's reliability.

* * *

I do not mind that information isn't your original work. Nor do I care that you want to take credit for what you have not done.

The issue is that, when left unchallenged, the real problem is your false sense of capability will blossom into arrogance. That shall not be worthy of respect.

It is not appropriate for others to argue, "Because no one has challenged this, it must be right." Rather, the real issue: You refuse to accept responsibility for what is wrong.

If you have a standard -- however real or illusory that might be -- then I expect you to live up to that standard; and then apologize for having violated that rule or standard that you have imposed on others.

If you say that certain conduct is or is not appropriate, but you engage in that conduct or refuse to do what you expect of others, then the issue is yours.

* * *

Your job is to choose whether you do or do not have integrity. The issue isn't perfection. The issue is the degree of harmony, resonance, discord, and credibility.

Those who have higher integrity, we may wish to have closer.

Those who have lower levels of integrity, we may wish to have at another proximity.

The world will find out. The issue isn't to suppress the truth. The issue is to accept that you are transparent.

* * *

If you choose to associate with those who have been put under investigation, that is your choice.

If you choose to assert legal non-sense, that is your choice.

If you choose to lecture the world about what should or should not be the standard, but you violate that standard, that is your choice.

If you freely take an oath to do something, that is a separate matter. You no longer have a choice. You have an obligation.

* * *

This is where we find ourselves. The issue for America is that it is now at the cross roads. You will have to choose.

On one side of the arena are those who are willing to assert the oath.

On the other side, are those who defy their oath.

In the audience are those who will cheer at the choice either makes.

The issue going forward: Which side are you going to choose, are you going to enter the arena, and will you dare to notice what is going on.

You are free to choose.

But once you make your choice to take an oath, then you have given up your choice, liberty, and discretion. You now have no discretion. You now have an obligation.

* * *

Your job it to decide.

Only you can make that choice.

* * *

It would please me if the following were to occur:

A. Fact checking

If you want to make assurances about others, then you demonstrate research capability that shows your conclusion has merit.

B. Rebukes

If you choose to rebuke someone for conduct that you engage in, then your rebuke should be publicly seen for what it is: Meaningless.

C. Accolades

If you choose to provide credit to others for something, that you later find out, they have not done, or they cannot do, then you should correct that accolade.

D. Corrections

If you have an issue with this, then you need to privately discuss this with those you trust. Whether you correct this now, later, or never is meaningless. You have an obligation to choose whether you are clear with those you associate as to what is really going on, what you can do, whether you are or are not serious about your freely chosen promises and oath.

* * *

Those who have a demonstrated track record of substantially complying with these principles will be given credit, responsibility, and deference.

Those who have a demonstrated track record of wavering from this will have their deference, respect, and credibility appropriately adjusted.

You are not forever banned or labeled as one or the other. However, where there is no intention to improve; nor a desire to freely embrace what is possible, then you shall not be seriously considered, however late you may awaken.

The longer you wait to correct your issues, the more time it will require to demonstrate that you are reliable.

You are not obligated to follow, embrace, and implement anything. However, once you take an oath, then you are bound. You no longer have a choice.

The issue is whether you will be given the chance to take that oath.

You will soon be asked.

Once you betray your oath, that is a serious matter.

* * *

You will get no sympathy when:

You take links without giving credit; but then take credit for what you cannot do; then are part of something that is linked with your credit, and you do not realize the mess you are in;

You assert a standard of professional conduct with an oath, but you refuse to assert your oath, even when given contrary information showing you have a problem;

You rebuke others for doing or not doing something, but you fail to show that you are willing to assent to that arbitrary standard;

You claim an infraction for something that you have denied others a remedy when they suffer the same;

You engage in conduct that you have denied others the option to enjoy;

You assert a standard, but then fail to meet that standard;

You berate others for faulty arguments, only to fall down and compel others to not notice when you do the same;

You claim to have a capability, but there are not facts to support your contention; then you suffer consequences for failing to perform, have credibility, or do what should be done;

You suffer an infraction, yet you resolve that infraction in a way that you have denied others to use;

You deny others a reasonable amount of courtesy, compel the world to assent to an absurd construction, yet claim that the truth of your infraction can be explained away;

You fail in your oath after having promised to protect the Constitution; yet you ask the world to not notice that you engage in the same non-sense as those you berate;

You fail to see the logical implications of what you say is possible, all the while refusing to embrace that your conduct is directly assenting to momentum which defies the oath, and the ultimate objective of your oath: The Constitution.

* * *

You have no credibility when:

You take credit for what you have not done;

You knowingly allow others to have false impressions of your capability;

You recommend others have confidence in a specific idea, person, or notion all the while you have failed to review the basis for your statement;

You fail to conduct a review of the things you recommend;

You make arguments which rely on ever-absurd constructions;

You fail to meet obligations that you have freely agreed to embrace as an obligation through an enforceable oath;

You engage in conduct which is at odds with your oath, freely chosen professional standards, or requirements you impose on others, however reasonable or unreasonable;

You assert that you have or haven’t done something, all the while the plain reading of the evidence shows the contrary;

You berate those for doing things you engage in;

You hold people to standards you have no track record of fully meeting;

You berate others for having failed to do or not do something, yet your conduct fails to provide credible assurances that you are freely choosing to meet the standards that you have embraced as your own;

You tell people to do or not do something, yet rebuke them when they do exactly what you want;

You induce others to believe something, then abuse them for having believed what you know is false;

You agree to do what should or should not be done, yet when detected you attempt to shift the attention from what you have or haven’t done, to whether others have or haven’t met some arbitrary standard;

You define someone’s conduct as unacceptable, yet you have only taken evidence from those who desire to prove an illusory infraction, not from those who desire to provide the truth

You promise to do something, but have no intention to implement that intention;

You berate those who rely on your promise, and rebuke them with ferocity when they subsequently follow-up on your failure to comply with your agreement;

You abuse and commit other violations in order to induce someone to rely on something or meet a standard that is not enforceable or applicable;

You abuse others, yet want special treatment when others lawfully reciprocate;

* * *

When dealing with threat so the Constitution, there is another issue. What is worth your time. When you take an oath, the issue of time is meaningless. That oath is an obligation that must be asserted as if time has no meaning. It is an eternal oath.

If you choose to spew forth non-sense to someone you think is an idiot, beware. They know.

You bring discredit upon your oath when you spew forth non-sense, and do so with the mistaken belief that the audience will not figure it out.

Rather, the audience may choose to celebrate your falsity, so that they may enjoy a larger fall.

Choose wisely.

* * *

This information will largely remain unchanged, but will be revised without notice, and expanded to provide clarity.

Good luck.

Read more . . .

Iraq: Redunking Rove and the RNC

Protecting the Constitution: All Options Are On Table

* * *

About 120 days until the election: The American voters want to see leadership.

The RNC is busy implementing Rove’s goals, and the DNC is planning for Rove’s departure from the political stage. Rove’s approach to the opposition is to attack their strengths. The DNC staff needs to consider the lessons of the Swift Boating and be prepared for the same.

Alligators win when they drag their land-loving prey into the water. Translation: The Fitzgerald Grand Jury was just a warm-up. Rove is going back into the dunk tank.

* * *

Today I wanted to share with you some links that may be of assistance and interest. As a caution, keep in mind the information I’m giving you could be a ruse: Namely, there may be an effort to make you think Rove is doing one thing, but he’s actually doing something else.

I wanted to share with you the themes that emerged from the information; and then comment on them. Obviously, others may have other views on the original information.

Realizing that you’re busy, I thought it would be useful to summarize some of the points in the information so that you may decide, if you haven’t already, to review or not review the original information on your own when you have some time.

* * *

There was a discussion on the Rove’s RNC strategy with Sydey Blumenthal and some others. What struck me in reviewing the information, then comparing it with other views from other sources, was that there were some common themes emerging at this time.

I thought it would be useful to review the key points; and then share with you some thoughts on how the DNC and your staffers might wish to incorporate this information.

* * *

My overall objective is simple: To protect the Constitution. Whether the RNC or DNC does this is of little concern. However, it is clear that the RNC, despite their many years to get this right, have gone terribly wrong.

The RNC cannot be trusted to reform itself. As we’ve seen with the non-sense over the NYT revelations – in that the Bush Administration targeted the media, not the law breakers in the Executive Branch – the public is willing to embrace legal non-sense, and openly call for the violent death of their fellow Americans.

Although startling, outrageous, and clearly unlawful, it would be appropriate to consider the dynamics as I see them. My concern is that, despite clear threats of violence, the leadership seems content in stoking the flames of non-sense, sparking others to incite violence, merely for political gain. Not to be overly dramatic, but the same thing happened on the eve of the civil wars in the United States in the 1860s and in England in the 1600s

My concern is simply with the election, or the vitality of the Constitution. Rather, in comparing the unfolding events to Craine Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution, and in the context of Colonel Dunlap’s “Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012”, there are some similar trends which the national leadership, regardless of party, need to consider:

The nation is relying on threats of violence to achieve unlawful objectives

Military resources have been squandered

Financial stability is put at risk while embarking on expensive foreign military adventures.

These trends are at the heart of social instability, civil war, and violent revolutions. The answer isn’t to suppress the needed drive for reforms. The way forward is to solve the issues before the civilians perceive violence is the only option.

We are now at the juncture.

* * *

Over the past year, things have accelerated, and we’ve seen the abuse of power spiral in unexpected ways inter alia:

The President has engaged in warrantless surveillance, in violation of FISA and the Constitution;

The Executive has used signing statements to ignore the intent of Congress;

The RNC has pointed to all others, while not accepting responsibility for the leadership problem within the RNC, and the abysmal results in Iraq; and

Congress hasn’t exercised oversight, and seems reluctant to do so, despite the real prospect that the RNC may lose power in the House of Representatives.

* * *

The core issue at this point, putting all of the above aside, is simple: What is to be done to ensure that this Constitutional Republic under this Constitution remains viable; as opposed to getting trashed under tyranny or a blossoming civil war.

Ideally, the forces of reason and prudence would rise to the occasion, rise above politics, and focus on the facts and evidence. In theory, this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they crafted the terms of the Electoral College, Congress, and Judicial Branch.

At the core of the founding fathers’ assumption is the notion that competing factions would check power. That assumption has failed, and we have what we have: An assent to an abuse of power.

Some have argued that the situation is critical, and times are grave. However, in terms of years since 9-11, both the American Civil War and WWII would have already concluded. Yet, unlike the Chief of Staff’s assertions about Executive power, Lincoln did not set a precedent to still violate the law. Rather, he illegally acted.

This seems lost on this Congress.

* * *

Between now and 120 days from now – on the eve of the election – the Executive and Rove has planned more pressure on the media to remain silent about other issues coming to light. These relate to the NSA training missions, and how the information related to the illegal surveillance was then transferred to local law enforcement and businesses for targeting. There’s more bad news on the way.

Rove’s approach is to make the DNC the problem. Just as we’ve seen with the suicides at Guantanamo, the RNC’s approach is to shift attention from the mess that they’ve made, and blame those who impose standards.

The point for your staff work and in preparing for the smearing is to keep in mind the real issue: This is an RNC-created mess. The RNC excuses that the Red Cross standards did or didn’t affect the attempts to revive the prisoners at Guantanamo is a red herring. If the RNC had complied with the law and not abused human rights with illegal torture, there would have been no suicides. Not only is the RNC at fault, but the doctors who are blaming the RNC are more at fault – they had a duty to, and failed to, intervene.

My concern is that the American medical profession, as is the legal profession, is largely complicit in the abuses. American doctors have duty to speak out to ensure the inmates and prisoners are well cared for. The American doctors have failed. In this spirit, the DNC needs to organize an oversight plan that, upon gaining control of Congress, they will implement to conduct fact finding into the fiduciary areas of law, medicine, and governance. The American people need to know there is a plan to get a plan. Yes, you may not know the details right now – because the RNC refuses to reveal the details of the abuse and full problem – but you can formulate a rough plan to “get a plan” and make it known to the voters you have a plan to find out.

* * *

Rove’s approach, as many report, is to go after other’s strengths. It isn’t enough to simply say, “Prepare for that.” Rather, his strategy has to be defeated.

But you don’t defeat someone by playing their game. You have to create a new game that they cannot win: The Alligator will take land-loving prey into the water; a shark will pull its victims into the water. Maybe you’ve seen a shark or alligator with wings swooping low to pluck a bird from it’s nest.

The issue is: How to do this. I make no claim that a specific strategy will or will not work. I only claim to know that to win, you have to win, not simply engage your enemy. Winning isn’t simply defeating your opponent’s strategy, strengths, or exploiting their weaknesses. How one achieves victory remains to be known.

The issue with Rove is to keep in mind that he has a specific position in physical space; he cannot be in two places at one; and that he is only one person. This is obvious, yet the point is simply this: He is not a God, and he is not endowed with super-human abilities.

To defeat Rove, you have to force him to take a position where he is vulnerable, and cannot win. You have to find out how to physically extract him from his comfort zone, and lawfully thrust him into the forum where he is least adept: The law.

* * *

Rove’s approach is to define the world into either “US” or “Them”. The problem the DNC has is that they’ve got many ideas on what an alternative could be; and Rove’s using these “may ideas” as “evidence” of something else.

It is time to throw the issue back on the RNC. I’m not talking debating with them. Rather, throw the issue back on them: Ask them, “Why should we believe that?”

The RNC needs to be extracted from their comfort zone, and forced into the open. It’s time to compel them to show their hands, force them to commit one way or the other n the rule of law. I’m talking forcing a vote on fact finding related to criminal conduct. The issue is to force a vote on record, and not let them hide it. This is what 603 does – it forces a vote. That’s what the RNC doesn’t want to do. Then make them do it.

* * *

The point is that the RNC simply makes statements. Rather, than get the RNC to justify that strategy – putting aside the details of that strategy, for them moment – the DNC is responding to the RNC.

To move a rock, you do not try to convince dirt to be something other than dirt. Rather, you have to get a crowbar and move the rock.

Rove is a rock. The DNC needs to start using new tools that will engage Rove and his strategy in ways that will defy the RNC, and force them to surface, remain in the open, and to account for their biggest problem: Iraq.

* * *

One of the problems the DNC has is that they take the RNC arguments and “Excuses for inaction” at face value, and refuse to simply remain focused, and continue with the strategy: Winning.

The RNC’s approach is fairly simple: Anything that is a threat – and this means, anything – they attempt to destroy it.

The RNC looks at the world, as stated before, in terms of: Either you are with us, or you will be destroyed as an enemy.

Well, consider that for the moment: Is that really true?

Look at it from the perspective of the RNC membership, not the leadership: The RNC members look at the RNC leadership as clueless, incapable of solving problems, and only blaming others. The RNC membership knows this.

The key is to learn the lesson of the Alito Filibuster: Sometimes you have to do something to delay, or what may not make sense, in order to achieve a bigger objective: That of gaining control of the floor, setting the agenda, and making your point. Even if the Filibuster ended, the point wasn’t that there was a “reason” for the filibuster: The point was that despite that threat, the DNC was willing to call the RNC on their bluff, and set the agenda.

Yes, when you stand up, you can count on the opposition to detract from your strengths, by implying that anything that is truly noble and warrants confidence is the opposite, and a big risk.

The RNC’s approach is to identify what is good about you – your sense of law, accountability, and fact finding – and change the issue into something else. The problem the DNC has is that it (apparently) attempts to argue the merits of the RNC points; and acts as if the public does or doesn’t get the point.

The real issue: What is to be done when the RNC opposition is wrong, but you cannot convince the voters to support you. It’s simple: You have to support the voters.

The US Constitution isn’t an RNC-DNC struggle. It’s a document that prevents the abuse of power, and protects rights. Nothing more.

The issue the voters need to understand is who is the best steward of that document; and how can the issues of the day – whatever they are – be couched in terms that the voters will have confidence in.

Iraq is the major issue that keeps surfacing: The central example of how the RNC has not only bungled American law, and sense of corporate governance, but how the RNC has failed to solve problems while they are in charge.

Some in the RNC like to make the case that the RNC is “better than” the alternative. Given that the RNC has been the only option we’ve had to work with, the RNC’s assertion is dubious. Simply put, the RNC would have us believe, if we only ignore reality, that they are best placed to do something.. They’ve even had the chance to adjust, modify, and gradually get things right. Even their efforts to adjust and alter and employ other options hasn’t worked. They’ve had their chance and failed

The only option that RNC has is to make the situation – whatever it is – the fault of, and responsibility of, others. The job of the voters and DNC is to throw this mess back at the RNC with full force, without any guilt, and without regard to the RNC whining: “This is your mess, you clean it up. It is not our job to solve your leadership problem within the RNC.”

Meanwhile, drag the RNC kicking and screaming into court for their failure to assert their oaths, reckless disregard for the laws, and contempt for the laws of the land. I’m not talking impeachment. I’m talking criminal grand juries that will target the RNC leadership, legal community, and the fiduciaries for their malfeasance.

The trick is going to get the voters to see that there is a credible body of criminal evidence, unrelated to impeachment, that warrants Grand Jury reviews and investigations. The voters can put pressure on prosecutors – either do your job and empanel grand juries, or we’re going to get you disbarred for violating your oath to the Constitution. Prosecutors also run for public office; and the State-level Attorney Generals can be worked with to put pressure on the Grand Jury system and evidence collection.

The American Bar Association needs a wakeup call from across the nation: Get off your rear ends, review your peer-review process, and come up with a very good reason why this much criminal conduct is not getting reviewed by ABA-associated attorneys. Prosecutors have ABA professional standards; and they too can be individually targeted for disbarment for failing to do what should be done, especially when the crimes are pervasive.


* * *

DNC leaders should stop telling the RNC how they should or shouldn’t lead. This isn’t to say that the DNC should be quiet. Rather, I merely state this so that you relieve yourself of the sense of, “If they would only listen” or “If the RNC leadership would just wake up.”

This is a losing mindset. The RNC leadership is not willing to listen to its own membership; it is irrelevant to them what the DNC leadership does or doesn’t think. Again, this doesn’t mean be quiet. Rather, it means that if you do speak out, do not move with the expectation that your sense of leadership – your identity – is or isn’t linked to whether the RNC does or doesn’t respond. Your goal is to quit defining your value and success in terms of whether the RNC leadership does or doesn’t do something.

Rather, the way forward is to define what success is in terms of whether the voters do or don’t do something; and then whether the Constitution is or isn’t preserved. In other words, you cannot control your enemy; you can only control what is in your control: Your model, you plan, and your example you will provide to the voters to convince them that you are the best leaders to ensure the blessings of our Constitution.

This means doing as the Colorado Attorney General did: Visiting the RNC-controlled districts, listening, and minimizing your losses. This means getting out of your comfort zone, and really listening to the RNC membership.

There is a wedge within the RNC – between the leadership, membership, and the voters within the RNC who will need to see that you are leaders, not simply a member of the DNC. You cannot win by simply engaging Rove; to win, you have to win the hearts and minds of the active, mobilized, and soon to be energized RNC base.

Make no mistake, the voters are going to watch and ask whether you are the right person for them. You will not win everything. Your goal is to be prepared for the attack, smearing, and the most outrageous defamation and accusations of treason. You character will be trashed; your integrity will be associated with AlQueda; and you will be called a close associate of those who planted the bombs on 9-11, and aided terrorists to kill Americans.

Your goal is to quit arguing over whether this is or isn’t true. Rather, your goal should be to prepare your strategy to defeat this, and then let the voters see that you can prevail, protect their interests, and go on the offensive to defeat the enemies of the American way of life.

At this point, the real enemies of America are within the RNC and the Executive Branch. Your goal should be to remind the public that Iraq is the example of what does go wrong when leaders fail.

Consider the propaganda coming out of Iraq. Military personnel are assigned to DoD propaganda units and contracting offices to mislead Americans, and make Americans think that things are just fine, that animals are wandering the streets eating grass. The real problem is that there’s a civil war in Iraq, and the RNC-controlled government in the White House failed to consider this well known risk. They just jumped in.

It’s not the job of the DNC to solve the Executive’s Problems. The Executive has to fix this mess. Rather, the DNC’s responsibility is to compel the executive to fix this mess, not do it for him.

Again, let me state that again: It is not the job of the DNC to solve the White House’s mess; rather, it’s the agenda and should be the goal of the DNC to explain to the voters what the DNC will do to compel the Executive to do what he promised.

This is a mid-term election. It is not the job of the DNC to manage and lead, yet have no power or authority to do so. The voters need to be reminded: This Executive has failed in Iraq; and this RNC controls all three branches, and they shall continue to do so for the next 120 days.

The problem the White House has is that they can’t point to a plan that they have to fix this mess that they are in. They have no plan; they have no plan to get a plan. Their only option is to make the DNC react to an illusory problem, which the DNC didn’t create.

So be bold and clear to the voters: Iraq is the mess this government created; the DNC can only provide a plan to compel the Executive to solve the problem. If you are expecting the DNC to provide the plan, or respond, then you need to elect the DNC staff to the Executive Branch, but that’s a different issue. The voters need to hear this simple message: The DNC is not going to take the bait on what should or should be done.

Rather, it is the RNC’s job to explain – after the DNC challenges the voters to put the attention on the RNC – what the RNC’s plan is for the next 120 days.

Again, in simple language, it’s time to stop looking at the November election as a single event; rather, there are 120 days between now and then; plus almost three months until January 2007, before the next Congress will show up. This means that the RNC has the position of power – and means – for the next 120 + 90 days = 7 months, or 210 days. That’s a lot of time for the RNC to outline and implement their plan.

So keep reminding the voters: That in June 2006, the RNC, despite knowing that they will be in power for 7 more months, has no plan in June 2006 to use 7 months of time to do things, solve problems, provide leadership, and assert their oath.

Again, let me say that again: This is an RNC mess, and the RNC in June 2006 has no plan for what they will do over the next seven months to lead the country. It is not the DNC’s role to assist the RNC and provide a solution.

Rather, you should expect the RNC to do more of what it did with the Iraq pullout: The staff will be privately working on the needed options; and the Congressional leadership will hope to engage in the DNC to attack what the RNC-staff is thinking about doing.

The RNC is using the DNC-response as a testing ground for how the plans they make are going to be revised, updated, and better crafted so the RNC can take credit for the DNC inputs, but then blame the DNC for the RNC disaster.

The question is what is to be done to address this problem.

* * *

There are a couple of approaches. One approach is to stop going to the Committee meetings, and hold independent, ranking-member-led discussions, and then use the ranking-member power to issue public letters calling for the IGs to review matters.

This approach works, in terms of the voters, when the voters can see how these letters are laying the ground work for accountability, are part of a larger plan, and are linked to a line of fact finding that would be useful for a grand jury for purposes of indictments.

When you write to IGs, make it clear what you are trying to find out, and how this fits into the strategy of Congressional oversight, litigation, and fact finding. Perhaps you may wish to have a discussion on the federal rules of evidence, how the responses or non-responses from the Executive take the voters down a logical conclusion to “This is the logical next step.”

Make formal “letter transmittal statements”, that do what the Executive does with singing statements, but apply it to the Congressional powers: Show how you will make adverse inferences about the responses. Make it clear in these “transmittal statements” how you expect the IG to respond; what you want them to review; and whether you expect to see a letter from the agency head outlining why the IG review could not occur because of “national security.” Make it clear how you will review the assertions of “national security” in light of the NSA revelations; and remind the public that there are dubious claims from the Executive related to “national security” when the real pattern has been to thwart the law.

Again, as you do this, make it clear to the public that you do not oppose the objective – that of protecting Americans – rather, you oppose the means and route the Executive is taking to protect America. One Georgetown Professor who you are well aware reminds us that it isn’t what is done, but how it is done. So don’t wait until the disaster and additional revelations – you know they’re coming; rather, make it clear to the public how you will deal with the revelations, protect rights, and prevent the abuse of power – while still achieving the same goal: Protecting the American constitution and Americans.

* * *

Let’s consider the Executive Branch staff. Clearly, DoD in the Pentagon is very large, in terms of what the Congressional staffers have.

There are situations where the Congress really needs to have a secret-system to collect information; and at the same time, publicly discuss what it will do.

My view is that Congress – namely, the DNC leadership – needs to outline the specific Congressional-Legislative agencies that need to be created so that the Congress does not depend on the Executive – and their misleading statements – on what is to be done.

From this perspective, the Congressional staffing approach seems rather haphazard. This may not be the case. However, the RNC in Congress has the advantage of knowing what the Executive Agencies are doing; while the DNC staffers have no comparative access to the RNC-DoD plans.

What’s needed is a system that will support this independent fact finding, and credibly raise the issues related to “What is to be done”. Obviously, there’s the Congressional research service, and the Committees. But what is to be done when the Committees are more concerned with going the through emotions of oversight, rather than asserting their non-partisan 5 USC 3331-obligation to assert their oath and protect the Constitution.

My thought is that there needs to be, just as the Executive has a DoD-staff, so too does there need to be a Congressional-agency like DoD in order of magnitude and size to analyze, oversee, and fully inject itself into the DoD planning process; while at the same time remaining independent of the Executive and loyal only to the Congress.

There are a few ways to do this. I’ve spoken at length on them before, and will simply touch on some of the approaches.

NSA-like monitoring system for Congress

Just as the Executive uses the NSA to monitor the world, so too can there be a system which the NSA cannot stop which directly targets the Executive Branch, and samples the written reports.

The goal of this approach is to have an independent method to more quickly spot problems, and independently gather information – just as the NSA does – but provide this to the Congress for purposes of oversight.

Congressional seats in Executive Branch

Power is currently separated into three branches. However, in practice, the Executive Agencies have turned into tyrannical hydras. An approach is to recognize each Agency as an inappropriate concentration of power, and divide the agency head into three: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. This would be a tri-partite system.

Modernized Constitution

The Congress is constrained by Article V in changes to the Constitution. However, We the People are not, and can craft a New Constitution, and present it, per Federalist 78.

Remind the voters that they have the power to do this outside the RNC-controlled system. The key will be to have a credible document that addresses the abuse of power we’ve seen since 1789.

At the core of the abuse is the American Bar Association, and the Iran-Contra Minority Report. The RNC membership embraced Addington’s legal non-sense, and for the most part the theories have not been challenged until the Supreme Court struck down the Executive’s Guantanamo decisions, and forced trials.

What’s needed is a system that is going to trigger some public oversight of the ABA, and have civilian review boards of lawyers that will review whether the agency legal advise is or isn’t up to par. How this is done remains to be seen. Succulently, I have no confidence the peer-review system works; we need only look at the disasters inside the AICPA for the auditors to see the mess.

We can either put together a reform plan now; or wait until a disaster – arguably, that disaster has already arrived.

* * *

When the RNC starts accusing members of the media of treason, call the RNC membership on the carpet:

Where’s the evidence

Where’s the court action

Where’s the legal complaint

Where’s the civil rights claim

The RNC is not serious about perusing these legal claims because if they were, they would subject their own to scrutiny:

Was the threat of violence and death something the RNC leadership failed to stop, but should have stopped, as was not done in Rwanda;

Was the effort to accuse others of crimes related to an orchestrated effort, which can be proven by reviewing documents

Given the threats of death against Americans, how can the Executive claim that discussions related to these threats of death against Americans are “privileged” – arguably such a claim is dubious.

The point is that if the RNC is serious, then the DNC should immediately call the RNC on their bluff and inquire into the status of the investigations; and then review the DoJ OPR ability to review whether there is or is not a bonafide FBI investigation into the threats of death RNC members have made against the NYT.

It is not appropriate that the public sit back, and there be a “civil action” that resolves this issue. No, we need to see DNC leadership to compel – as leaders of the Country – those in the RNC who are making threats, and call them on the carpet before Congress:

Did they miss the lesson of Rwanda

Are they unfamiliar how a single radio station in Rwanda incited Rwandans to commit acts of violence

Who within the RNC and military is the public listening to when they make these accusations of treason

What is the reason they are inciting others to commit acts of violence

What is their plan to get private counsel to advise them on how to proceed when Congress and the Courts conduct fact finding

Why are the agency heads in the Executive Branch not looking at the matters

What information does the IG have related to Executive Branch personnel inciting RNC members to publicly call for the deaths of Americans

* * *

Overall, it’s disappointing to hear, “remember the Holocaust”, yet we have Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

Well, now we have America: And the same non-sense that built up in Rwanda and Yugoslavia is now happening in America:

Radicalization of a civilization population

Executive leadership failures

Desire to find scapegoats

Targeting the sources of information

Comments to intimidate others to assent to violence

Actual calls for violence

Leadership inaction

Failure of the criminal justice system to stop the organization, communication, and planning needed to carry out the attacks

* * *

Given what we know about how a civilian population can be quickly mobilized, and what we’ve seen over the past few hours, it is incumbent on the Congressional leadership to publicly exercise leadership, call for restraint, and compel the leadership across the country to set the example.

It is not appropriate that the Executive “come to the rescue” of a problem he has created: namely, it is possible that the Executive hopes to stir things up with the hope that the Congress then turns to him saying, “We need you to intervene.”

We’re no there yet. Rather, what can be done is Congress to exercise leadership, and compel the Executive – President, Vice President, Chief of Staff, and RNC leadership in the House – to no longer comment on something that has inflamed the passions.

It is not appropriate for the President and Vice President to claim that the exercise of constitutionally protected activity is “disgraceful,” when the real disgrace is the abuse of Executive power, and incitement of death and violence against American civilians.

Make no mistake, if this Executive could find an excuse, at the drop of a hat he would institute martial law. He wants Congress and the public to demand it; and he is fully capable of inciting the very ruse to achieve that objective.

The issue is going to be who is going to lawfully stand up to this fabricated power grab; what needs to be done immediately to review the lessons of Rwanda and Yugoslavia; and how can the DNC leadership in the Congress make it known to the voters that the DNC leadership is doing the right thing to provide the leadership: The needed leadership to compel the Executive to remain accountable for his statements, and refrain from inciting his military commanders and officers from publicly calling for American citizens to be physically targeted in retaliation.

The DNC is allowed to pass a “sense of the DNC”-statement or proclamation. Also the DNC at the state level can work with their political parties to issue proclamations; and local citizens can discuss this issue at their town hall. The point is that where RNC Congress and the Executive fail to exercise leadership in June 2006, the voters need to know that there are options that the country needs implemented, but the RNC refuses to exercise leadership, demonstrate restraint, and do what it can in June 2006.


We’ve often heard what “big bad things” might happen if a certain person was elected to office. Well, putting aside the election, those “big bad things” have already happened under RNC-leadership:

RNC members accusing others of committing crimes, but failing to provide their evidence as required;

The Executive going after the messengers of illegal Presidential Conduct;

The RNC leadership inciting violence against Americans.

From a plain-view of the situation, it’s difficult to distinguish the RNC and those the RNC is supposedly fighting on the battlefield. I think the voters are prepared to hear the comparison, more so in the recent hours given the reckless statements the President and Vice President have issued on the NYT revelations. They knew, or should know, that such statements would tend to incite violence; and the fact that they have failed to tone down their remarks is sufficient basis to compare the President to the media advocates in Rwanda: Namely, being the source of information that is inciting the violence against Americans.

* * *

The RNC approach to think is to focus on the immediate moment, and pretend that the past misconduct does not exist, and the likely future misconduct will not occur.

This is a narrow view of the disasters which the RNC created, because that is exactly how the RNC hopes the voters view the situation: That history is not relevant; that the bad trends will not reoccur.

But let’s take a step back. The RNC would have the voters think that it is the party of economic prosperity. Fine, call them on that – make the RNC explain in simple terms to the voters how their corporate values square with the mess they find themselves.

IN other words, when you’re a CEO, you do not approach the disaster on your plate narrowly, as the RNC approaches issues. Rather, you look at the past, identify what is going wrong, and fix it; otherwise, if you do not fix it, you can reasonably expect the bad trends to continue, and the momentum to get worse: The past can be used to forecast what is going to continue happening, unless something is done.

So throw the issue back to the RNC: If they truly are leaders for the next seven months, why have they not taken the time to review the matters; do what CEOs do; and then come up with a plan?

The answer is that they have two standards on economic prosperity and corporate governance: They like the idea of governance and corporate responsibility as a selling point; but when it comes to applying that standard to Constitutional governance, they fail to show why they are suited for national leadership.

In order for the voters to believe that the RNC is worthy of leadership, we need to see a demonstrated track record of having provided that leadership: namely, an ability to identify what is going on, solve the problem, and then change the momentum. This is called transformation.

Yet, if we are to believe the RNC notion – that they are worthy of leadership, and they are the party of economic prosperity – then why does America see no evidence that these corporate governance values and skills (that they supposedly had in order to achieve economic greatness) put into practice on issues related to Iraq?

They have no answer because they are not leaders; rather, they are reckless. Iraq is the example of the failed economic planning and policies of this leadership.

Consider more broadly what we have in Iraq: It is sovereign, they have their own Constitution, yet the US acts as if it is still a southern State in the 1860s.

Just as the US moves forces in Europe, so too will there be a day when the US forces in Iraq are moved. Whether the RNC controlled Congress want to pretend otherwise is a different matter. The prudent way forward is to throw this on the RNC: If there is no plan to adjust, then how are they truly arguing to anyone that they have a plan to do anything.

It’s time for the DNC to point out to the voters: The RNC has no set of clear, credible assumptions they are using for their planning anywhere. We’ve seen the results in Iraq and Katrina.

It’s time for the RNC to show the basis for their estimates, explain to the public why we should have confidence in what they’re saying, and for the RNC to come to the table and justify why they should be believed.

This isn’t about the DNC vs. the RNC. It’s about which group of people and which individuals we can believe to exercise leadership now in June 2006, and what is going to be done for the next seven months.

It’s time the DNC remind the RNC that the voters are the board of the directors. If the RNC is going to take credit for the economic prosperity, then it is time the RNC start acting like the leaders they want us to believe they are and startinter alia:

Demonstrating the detailed reasons they are proposing to do what they are doing;

Outline in detail for the voters the basis of estimates

Provide to the voters their assumptions

Show that there has been a process to review, challenged, and has considered the risks with the approaches and other views

Credibly argue why the plans they have should be believed given their poor track record of Iraq and Katrina.

Put together a plan to explain to the public why we should be believe this plan, that it is lawful, and it is a prudent plan.

* * *

At the same time, it’s reasonable for the voters to be reminded of the following, which directly contradicts the RNC assertions related to the “big leadership ability” and “desire to take credit for economic success”:

Torture, abuse, and rendition memos – they use legal non-sense to justify illegal abuse; so why should we believe that their internal attorney deliberations, out of the Congressional spotlight, will achieve any other outcome other than more illegal activity?

The warrant requirements, and failure of the Congress and Executive to enforce the law – showing they cannot be believed to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath; so why should we believe they’ll do what they should?

The Downing Street Memos, and failure of Executive to provide clear information to Congress on what was going on – showing the Executive will engage in private discussion with many people with the intent to do what is not lawful, and with the full knowledge of many that he was deceiving the public; so why should we believe him this time?

The refusal of the Congress to review Phase II; so why should we be believe that Congress is going to “quickly” review a matter that they argue is “trivial”?

The lack of WMD evidence, and outright lies the Executive used to manipulate his own party to support what was an unlawful war; so why should we believe that their public statements can be used to measure their real thinking and plans?

The ever-shifting arguments to justify the illegal surveillance; so why should we believe they really had a clear idea of what they were doing, or that they will have a clear idea going forward?

They make up evidence, but want us to believe “they’re telling the truth this time” when it comes to other matters – why should we believe them when it comes to Iran? Rather, the available information is, as it was with Iraq, contrary to the Executive’s Agenda.


The point is that the issue isn’t simply to make a laundry list of problems. The point is to show the voters how this pattern in the past raises reasonable doubts about the ability of the RNC to effectively lead over the next 7 months.

We can only imagine what other illegal activities are occurring; and how, in an effort to block Congressional-Judicial knowledge of unconstitutional conduct, the Executive has intimidated others to keep silent about other illegal activity.

Yes, Virginia, the reason there is no evidence of illegal activity is that the Executive has compartmentalized the information related to the illegal activity. Hitler got away with doing what he did because the world refused to face facts; Germans refused to accept that they were contributing to something. The same can be said for America: The voters need to face facts, and make adverse inferences, and accept that if they do not accept what has happened – for whatever reason – then they will require greater abuses for them to wake up.

Rest assured, you’re going to hear more about how the information that has been collected, was subsequently used to target innocent American citizens, ignore the warrant process, and has rendered American citizens, and subjected them to warrantless, abusive interrogations inside the United States.

The energy that has gone into avoiding lawful oversight needs to be transformed into energy to specifically target the legal, medical, and other professional associations: You are the leaders, and if you will not lead, then you are not going to compel the voters to assent to you non-sense, opinions, work products, or other estimates.

If the “experts” aren’t willing to stand up when it’s simple, as could have been done in the early days of the Iraq planning in 2000-2, why should we believe they’re going to stand up in the subsequent seven months, when the stakes are higher, and the abuse more pervasive? This is a credibility problem for the RNC to remedy for the voters, not for the DNC to solve or respond to.

* * *

If the RNC says, “Well, what if you were facing this mess. . .” remind them that it is the RNC mess to solve. But if they persist state, “If I were in the RNC facing the dilemma you are, I would resign; call the DOJ OPR, open the files, and conduct war crimes trials for those under me who followed my illegal orders.”

The RNC keeps pressing for “the solution.” Give it to them: The rule of law.

But remind the voters, despite the RNC still being in a position to hold power from June 2006 to January 2007, they refuse to do what is in their oath, 5 USC 3331.

They have failed, and have no plan for Iraq, and they have a disaster they created;

They are reckless, and continue to violate the law, but have no plans to have audits for what was done;

They wage illegal war, but refuse to hold the RNC leadership accountable for war crimes, and do nothing to hold the legal counsel liable for their failure to ensure the laws of war were credibly implemented, followed, and enforced at all levels in DoD in the period 2000-2006,

* * *

The RNC likes to have others believe that the DNC is split. Other views are a good thing.

Yet, the truth is that the RNC has major divisions: Those who are on the wrong side of the law, and those who are on the wrong side of history.

Today, it is clear that some in the RNC want to abandon the Neoconservative agenda. Not so fast, they’re stuck with the results.

Their convenient shift isn’t credible. The time to have abandoned ship was when the earliest reports of problems surfaced, not when the bow pierces the ocean surface on the way to the bottom.

It’s time to remind the voters that the RNC leadership – those who are attempting to have others believe that they’ve “seen the light” – is still stuck in the headlights for the next seven months. They’ve shown no serious interest in providing leadership; applying history, it’s not likely that giving them another seven more months, or two more years, is going to achieve a different result. Leaders make changes, not excuses.

* * *

Time to call the Executive Branch marketing process under review. They make propaganda. They create focus groups. They have one goal: To sell non-sense and motivate people.

The voters need to hear that this process is going to get closer review, and credible media challenge. I was pleased when we had open discussions about what was actually going on, and what the voters need to think about to make informed decisions.

It’s one thing to create a catchy phrase; it’s quite another to create a catchy future. This RNC can’t create a compelling future for Iraq; it’s only option is to use phrases that incite other Americans to commit violence against scapegoats. That’s not leadership. That’s criminal activity.

* * *

During the time of Charles I in England, if things did not improve, Cromwell considered moving to the Americas. Others moved away, many to Holland and Europe.

Make no mistake, if there is, by some bizarre miracle, an RNC victory, rest assured the brightest minds in American will stop talking about moving. They will go.

Yes, the RNC likes to point to the immigrants as “evidence” that things are fine, and people “want to get in here.” But just as there was a brain drain from Iraq, so too will America suffer a loss of talent, insight, and vision.

America has a great future. The issue is whether Americans want to create that future, or simply hold onto it as an idea, all the while the RNC destroys it. The RNC is not part of the solution: They are the problem.

The voters need to see the DNC confront the RNC and make the RNC confront the mess they have in Iraq. Those who fail to support the Constitution and rule of law, are helping to fuel terrorism and hatred toward Americans. The RNC is inciting violence not just abroad, but now at home against Americans.

Putting aside the issue that the RNC does not really control anything, much less Iraq, if the RNC does not think that amnesty should be given to anyone in Iraq, they cannot explain why amnesty be given to those in the Executive branch over the illegal presidential programs.

* * *

The RNC is a bully organization. The DNC needs to realize that, unless they unite, the bully will simply play them off against each other.

Recall the words of the RNC leadership before we invaded Iraq: “We have to put our snake boots on, go into the rocks, and find the snake.”

The same needs to be said of the RNC: Today, it is time for the DNC to realize that they too have to put their boots on, do what is difficult, and confront this RNC snake – as one.

No matter what the RNC says oar does, it is about one thing: Avoiding accountability for their failures in Iraq. The voters, when given the right leadership, will understand that the failures in Iraq are more than foreign policy, they are at the core of the RNC: Incompetence.

You will be attacked. Your strength will be derided as something that is bad. Your desire to see a better future will be discredited. Your hope for the future clouded over. This is coming from the RNC, because they cannot dare let the voters see you shine.

Prepare to get treated poorly, not because there is anything wrong, but because of what is right with you, your party, and the Constitution: It shall prevail.

Within a few short weeks you will face a manufactured crisis. It will relate to a diversion. The goal will be to shift attention from your vision, and make you believe there is an opportunity. Proceed with caution.

This opportunity is a calculated trap. The people who are putting this ruse together hope to make you believe that you are the unique provider of a solution; and that you and they can work together to achieve great things.

Carefully review the full record. You will be rewarded not for your action, but your judgment. But your refusal to commit to action will be derided as indecisive. Remind the world, that if this truly is a good opportunity, then there will be others coming along.

There is no one last hope for peace. Rather, there is always hope for peace. Some provide a false hope of something, only so that you take the blame when there is war, abuse, and ultimate accountability.

Again, remind yourself when this illusion appears – it will be difficult to recognize it – that you are not in charge; and that the opportunity is on an artificial timeline. Consider the following questions:

Why should I believe this opportunity is real

If this is a “sure thing:” why hasn’t the RNC already, on their own, crafted a plan to resolve this, and take all the credit?

Have I consulted with those who have other views

Why is this deadline required

Why is the responsibility for this decision up to those who are not in charge

If this is a sure thing, why hasn’t the RNC simply voted as a block, fully united, to do what they could do at any time – do whatever they want without consultation with any lawyer, law, or member of the DNC

The answer is that they want you to buy into an illusion, then leave you with the mess. You are dealing with war criminals. They are willing to see their own membership take the blame; it is absurd to believe they have any respect for you as an opponent. They have already called for your death; they are not your friend. They are criminals.

Beware, and exercise judgment and statesmanship, not reactivity or impulse. You are leaders, paid to provide informed judgment, and then pass laws. You are not the ones that are required to move quickly – this is the responsibility of those who ask for something. You are not asking for anything – you already have power; those in the Executive branch who appear before you are asking you to believe. You have no credible reason to ever believe what they say. They are criminals.

* * *

We need to consider which DNC oversight plan will be needed to remind the executive of his job. This plan has to be workable regardless whether the DNC does or does not win in November.

Rather, this approach needs to be something that is workable from June 2002 going forward, until we have a better plan.

The DNC leadership in the Senate and House needs to rally their members to a clear commitment: To have a vigorous debate, to share views, to challenge each other, then agree on a plan, and stick together.

If you are not united, and this Constitution is further destroyed, then rest assured we have other options. Those are in place. We are not quite there yet.

The process will either succeed or fail on its own. We the People will continue to work on an alternative system, a better Constitution, and one that better protects rights and prevents the abuse of power.

To those of you who have voiced concerns, or made your ideas known, rest assured your words have been given great care. Some of you have written at length; some of you are unclear; some of you have given up hope. Not to worry, there is still hope. There is a way, and we can figure out a better way to do things.

When you speak or write, speak as if you fully expect your ideas to be taken seriously. When you have a solution or idea, so state. It will help transform others thinking. Your single idea may not be the final idea; rather, it may spark someone else to consider something novel.

Bravery simply means continuing with what you know needs to be done, even when you are afraid, have given up hope, or believe you will not win. It is better to stand up, and assert yourself, and lose than to roll over and give up before trying. When you are scared, you will have a lot of adrenaline; if you roll over, it will simply consume you. Brave people will stand together and defeat a bully.

The bully is also afraid, and stupid. Their power only comes with your assent. If you are not feeling safe, then you need to ask for help. It doesn’t matter what they call you, you still have to be brave – that means admitting you are scared, then putting that aside, and focusing on protecting yourself. If the world will not rally to your aid, and you are alone, then you have no choice but to protect yourself. You are not alone. You do not have to fight. You can win, and the world will notice who the leaders are. You have to lead, not simply ask others to believe you are a leader.

* * *

Behind the scenes, the investigators are collecting evidence.

Behind the scenes, the RNC is intimidating those who are doing their job to protect the Constitution.

The RNC believe they have the following strengths:

Ability to commit war crimes without consequences or accountability;

Perception they can lie and betray others in their party

Ability to blame others for their internal problems

Shock others with surprises and invoke fear to dissuade action

This is not leadership. It is manipulation, abuse, and tyranny.

The results are simple: The disaster in Iraq, and the propaganda to make the world believe something else; and then intimidation to dissuade the public from openly discussing lawful consequences for their reckless conduct.

If you do not stand up to the RNC, we will have more of the same: Abuse, crimes, cover-ups. There is a solution: Before it gets that bad, make adverse inferences – and conclude that it’s going to be the same, no matter what the RNC promises.

The pattern of abuse is a lifestyle. We can extrapolate from Iraq, and reasonably conclude the conduct is going to continue in other areas. We already know that the President has worked with a small group to commit crimes – those crimes we know; the issue is: How many other groups is he working with, and what is going on.

Voters do not have to learn the details.

* * *

The key will be to listen. Then change the subject back to the failures in Iraq: it is not simply about national security. Iraq is a proxy for the leadership – the RNC is on the world stage, they have no political opposition at home, and they alone are in charge.

Yet, at every turn, they’ve failed. There’s nothing that got in their way, except those who refused to go along with the non-sense and abuse.

The deceptions about Iraq need to be looked at broadly: It’s not simply about lying to go to war for “good reasons.” Rather, it’s despite having complete control of the agenda, the RNC leadership lied to their own members, who are now too afraid to speak out about their betrayal.

There was no reason t lie when they already had the votes to do what they wanted to do: Whatever they wanted. Rather, it’s the job of the RNC leadership to explain why, despite having total control, they bothered putting together a plan or a ruse.

This RNC leadership spent more time planning a ruse than they did planning for reality. That’s no leadership, that’s deception. What else are they planning or not planning?

With leaders like this, it’s not clear how they can credibly take credit for anything that’s gone right, especially when, where it really counts, things have gone horribly wrong. They lie and betray about important things; why would they bother doing anything else when it comes to trivial matters they show less concern with. Even when it’s important, they still get it wrong. That’s not a perception problem: It’s their legacy.

It remains to be seen who else the White House is lying to, or putting pressure on to keep quiet about. It would be helpful if the press were encouraged to discuss what specific issues they are being dissuaded on reporting; and conversely, why isn’t the press simply publishing the information without warning the President?

Obviously, someone inside the Executive branch is aware of the communication to the media – how else would the President know to call. Curious that people are aware of the information discussions with the media, and at the same time the President learns of these discussions. There are some brave people in the Executive branch who, despite being detected, are still sharing what the public needs to know: Things are not going right.

* * *

What’s curious is that the RNC based is excited, yet is not being held accountable for their reckless statements. It would be appropriate to make that the issue: Voter-citizen accountability. It doesn’t make sense to argue that “we’re fighting for a principle,” yet the principle, as it is put into practice, is not civilly executed. Perhaps this is at the core of the world’s contempt for the American approach: Lofty principles, failed execution.

* * *

Some have suggested that reading the Rove New Hampshire speech might be interesting to do. To get an idea of what he is thinking; what he’s actually got on his mind.

The issue isn’t simply understanding what he does, nor simply defeat him on his playing field; but to extract him from where he is familiar. Alligators and sharks do not defeat cows on land, they drag them into the water.

Rove is weakest when facing the law. Let the law be the form which compels the RNC to assent to the DNC will. The law is the tool which the RNC cannot survive, they can only flounder, as a cow might when buried up to its neck in a cold lake.

The RNC hides its discussion because its words cannot withstand scrutiny. It is one thing to have a set agenda; quite another to know that the agenda is flawed, and refuse to implement what is illegal.

The RNC leadership is reckless, not simply is results, but in how they go about doing what they do. They do not offer inspiring leadership. They offer non-sense, as we have seen in Iraq, Guantanamo, and the many fraudulent violations of the Constitution.

The key will be to expose to the sunlight the key RNC disagreements: How they view their legacy; what they will do as their legal problems surface; and how they will stay united as their cause implodes. The greatest threat to the RNC unity is reality.

The reality is that many inside the RNC, for whatever reason, have refused to do what should be done. They take oaths to bind them to promise to do what they would otherwise not freely do. People who take an oath are promising us to do something. The issue is that we haven’t gotten what they promised; yet they still got paid. Their supervisors know this, but refuse to fire them.

The legal experts are the lawyers. The law firms which house the partners have some explaining:

There are clear standards, why were these not enforced?

If it is “someone else’s job,” why wasn’t the “lack of clearly defined responsibility” itself the issue?

WE have laws of war, treaty obligations, judicial cannons, and ABA professional standards, and the existing laws and case law. What happened to the oversight – how many rules were going to be ignored; how long has this conduct been known; and what else is required to get people to “really be concerned”?

There’s a history since 2000 of doing nothing. That’s quite a bit of inertia. Why should the voters in June 2006, now expect a change despite all that which refuses to budget?

Congress is a legislative body. The election is months away. Where is the leadership in Congress now?

The RNC knows that cannot go on forever. Now that they know their Neoconservative Agenda is falling apart, why are they waiting to start doing what they should have done? You’d think that they’d see the writing on the wall, and realize it was time to start doing their jobs. This crew doesn’t appear well positioned to comprehend simple things. They are completely in control of everything, but out of control and reckless. It’s non-sense for the RNC to talk about “what they’re going to do after the election” – why aren’t they talking now about what they’re going to do while they still have the agenda and public’s business to take care of?

If the RNC’s attitude is, “Let the public figure it out,” who needs the RNC?

* * *

This US government has been a disgrace to the US Constitution. It’s reckless, negligent, and incompetent.

The issue with the NYT discussion of SWIFT isn’t the data collection, but how the information is used in illegal ways to support more abuse.

When law enforcement and government officials violate the law, some say this inspires contempt for the law. That is not necessarily true--we still have a constitution and that is not held in contempt by all. Rather, when government officials refuses to enforce the law, this simply incites contempt for those specific government officials, their agency, and their mission. They do not need to be rude, abusive, or arrogant. Yet, if the public were to show that ‘attitude,” suddenly that is the basis to detain and abuse us. That is arrogant. Yet, this is no different than what the British troops did in the Colonies: Abuse power.

We passed a Constitution to fix that abuse. But the solutions were not complete. There’s still abuse. The way forward is to create some solutions to this mess. When the RNC points to the voters and say, “Why haven’t you fixed this” – we can show them: We already have. It’s in the Constitution.

* * *

Iraq is a disaster. The RNC is in charge of the US, not Iraq. Yet, the RNC cannot get it right when they are in charge. Why are we going to let them remain in charge?

This government has resources, and had goodwill.. Those have been squandered. We do not need to give them more time to squander more.

This President well disclosed in the Patriot Act which he signed the very things he wants others to be silent about. The issue is that Ashcroft promised to get warrants to do what is now being done. The fact is, based on what we know, we have little reason to believe the promises, and that the same problems with the FISA-NSA are occurring elsewhere: They said one thing in public, but are doing something else. There very well could be more to the story. The point at this juncture may be to simply get the public to get comfortable with the idea of something, then release additional details – the frog in the warming kettle of water. It’s premature to conclude “things are just fine,” especially given the NSA compartmentalization: There’s likely something else on the way.

* * *

We need new leadership to find facts. We need a definite plan to conduct fact finding, to include:

Topics

Areas of expertise needed

Desired personnel

Lines of questions

Then an open ended concurrence that the deadline is not as important as the truth.

It would be good to outline the general areas of inquiry, and review the major issues and questions to be explored; ten compare the scope of the abuses to other similar events so the public has an idea of how long things might take.

Perhaps the voters, when they realize the enormity of the problem, will e willing to support candidates whose staffs outline credible budget-time estimates to find facts and implement some solutions.

If Congress refuses to provide leadership, it is rather simple for someone to sit down at a computer and devise a New Constitution. It’s already been done. The states are already listening and taking seriously new ideas.

The key problem is that the RNC is in such a mess, they have very little ability to articulate their problems, nor are they able to defined with specificity what needs to be improved. Their apparent approach is merely to make all others fall down to their level.

The greatest insult to the RNC leadership would be to take their mess, develop a plan to solve it, but not give the RNC credit for being the catalyst for the needed improvements. I think the RNC is going to get all the recognition they want when the indictments roll out. They may have money for lawyers, but money can’t buy real solutions – rather, they can force people to accept an imposed solution. We don’t have to do that.

Dare to dream and talk about what you really want to see. Be specific. You might be surprised who reads your comments, and how your words inspire those who can make a difference to do that – make a difference. We’ll never know unless you put it in writing. It doesn’t have to be perfect – it just has to be what you really think. What’s stopping you from telling the truth, sharing your views, and stating what you think is possible? Only you can decide if you’re going to remain silent. No body can stop you from thinking, or writing. It only takes one word.

Just one.

One.

* * *

The choice we have is between the Constitution or a New Constitution. The RNC would have you believe that the choice is something else.

Rather, the way forward is beyond the RNC’s simplistic either-or-options

It’s too simplistic to look at the world – as Rove and RNC does – in terms of whether you are for or against the RNC. You can still be against the RNC, but be for America and the Constitution.

Remember, they’ve already threatened people with death and violence for simply discussing what the President has said. If they want this absurdity to continue, they would have us believe that only the President can comment on things, and all others have no right to speak.

That’s a load of non-sense. We can ask any question, make adverse inferences, and draft a New Constitution any time we please. There’s nothing they can do to stop that.

We also know a lot more about 9-11 than what we did in 2001 when it first happened. The RNC failed to do its job, and didn’t follow the laws, and even though they were in control, could not coordinate within their own party to solve problems:

How do we work with the government, that we control, to lawfully solve a problem?

How do we organize the resources, using the government we control, to solve problems?

They didn’t answer this in Iraq or Katrina or NSA or anything else.

* * *

Supposedly they claim successes. Why didn’t the RNC “take the lessons of the successes” and apply them to the areas where there were failures: In Iraq?

They have no answer because they have no facts. They need to pay attention to facts – audits, reality, evidence – in order to understand where they are, how they got there, and what has to be done to change.

They aren’t leaders. They don’t know how to lawfully do things. They know how to abuse. But there are 300 million of us, they can’t abuse us all.

See.

* * *

What’s curious, unsettling, and absurd about the situation in Iraq, is the disconnect it has with America.

Let’s put it this way: We’ve heard a lot about the lies over torture. We got bad information.

The same goes with NSA – we got bad information.

What can the RNC point to that will make us believe that suddenly, out of the blue, they’re giving us “good” information? There’s always more to the story, excuses, and fact checking.

Their policy statements and comments do not stand up to scrutiny. How do the RNC members believe that this is going to continue – forever spewing forth non-sense, and that the civilian population is not going to get it?

* * *

There is a common pattern: Taking invalid information, and employing the full force of government on the innocent.

The US military personnel should know that they’re getting information that is not reliable – it’s from torture -- , yet the go on home invasions in Iraq.

The same can be said of the NSA – they are getting unreliable information, yet JTTF is getting this raw information, not requiring it be presented t a judge for review, and they are independently – as the military does – taking action on he questionable information.

When a government is willing to violate the law, and not assent to what it agrees, and employ force against the innocent, then We the People have to do something.

It’s not just a question of “we could be next.” The simple issue: When our Constitution fails, We the People have to step in and make the people do what they promise: Not abuse power, and respect rights.

This government has been given plenty of notice, fair warning, and they know the issues are clearly established. The question is what is to be done when the government, through what reason, says that We the People have to put up with the abuses which are not lawful, and contrary to their oath.

A government that uses illegal force, and violates rights is one thing. But a government that prohibits its citizens from doing anything about this abuse of power is more than tyrannical: It is not legitimate.

That is where we find ourselves.

There are plenty of people who can pretend that the judges, legislators, and executives in the government are duly appointed. But we only need to look at the results: Violations of the law.

The Congress has the power, and refuses to do, what is needed to protect the Constitution. It doesn’t matter why they’re not doing it – the point is that the promised to do what they are not doing. That is a crime. It is called malfeasance.

Members of Congress are not immune to that law, especially when it comes to an issue of on oath or promise. They have one duty: To protect the Constitution from domestic enemies.

Their challenge is to confront: What is to be done when the domestic enemy is one of their peers, and that enemy refuses to protect the Constitution, does not assert power, refuses to engage in oversight, and blocks lawful inquiry needed to ensure the Executive does what he promises.

Put aside the issue of impeachment and removal from office. The issue is simple: What is to be done when the government refuses to face reality, will not ask questions, refuses to engage in oversight, does not want to find facts, obstructs investigations, and attempts to target the very people who are talking about reality.

Consider the general assumptions of the framers:

Congress shall make no law . . .

Yet, Congress should also be compelled to do things. . .

Yet, Congress should also not have to be told it “can’t do something” when it doesn’t have the power to do so. . .

Yet, we have to consider where we are:

Despite no power to assent to illegal war, this Congress had created that power: The illusory power to assent to illegal war. We didn’t grant them that power, so why are they doing it? They have no answer.

Despite no power to block investigations, this Congress created that power: The illusory power to block and thwart efforts to protect the Constitution. We didn’t grant them the power to both take an oath, but then ignore that oath, so why are they doing it? They have no answer.

This government needs to face the lawful threat of litigation: To compel the members of the government, judiciary, and executive branch to do what should be done, even after they have promised to do so.

The issue is that checks and balances are not working, contrary to what the “DoJ expert” on signing statements says: We clearly do not have DoJ OPR reviewing the matters within DoJ: so how can DOJ OPR make a report to Congress – thereby providing needed information to check power?

This DoJ “expert” is a shill, living in a fantasy world, and is delusional. If checks and balances were working, we wouldn’t have what we have: Abuse of power, violation of rights, and disregard for the law.

* * *

The issue going forward is what is to be done. There are many things. We could craft a New Constitution that compels the Government Officials to assent to a series of specific legal requirements that are above and beyond those lawful requirements imposed on them. These requirements could be something that is more about individual responsibly of government officials, and less to do about the illusory “responsibility” this government wants us to believe it is concerned about.

Before they pass an amendment against flag burning, they ought to look at the mess we have with the Constitution: There needs to be an amendment that prohibits what we have: Destruction of the Constitution.

Yet, that Amendment is already there – its’ actually not an Amendment – it’s part of the Constitution. It’s called the Supremacy clause: That the people who take an oath to the Construction recognize that it is their highest duty.

It was a clear requirement. The issue is – what happens when that duty is ignored, as is the case now, but it is not enforced, and we get another mess.

These “leaders” have betrayed their oath. What’s worse, there’s no system in place to timely call them on this. Rather, despite the illegal war and abuses, we’re six [6] years into this. That is outrageous.

Imagine being pregnant, and then being told – you have to wait until your child is in first grade – before you are allowed to impose any discipline on them. That child is going to grow up to be a terror.

That’s what’s happened to America: We’ve let this disaster mature into something that is still young, but it can’t be allowed to happen again.

Yes, there is another child on the way. After you learn the disaster that happened with your first one – in that you are not allowed to discipline them for six years – are you going to stay in that country and have another child?

* * *

This American military tortures people in Iraq, then uses that information to conduct illegal, abusive home raids that disrespect the civilians. There is no difference between the abusive Red Coats and the American Infantry.

How many Red Coats do you know, before the 1776 events, who entered homes and actually killed Colonists, then planted evidence on them to “justify” the abuse, not just in that situation, but in other situations?

The military talks about “values” as if those values were “unique” to the military. Where is the sense of respect that the American military “should have” from the “big lessons” of 1776? In theory, when the US fights – even if it is an illegal war – the lessons of the American Colonies should give commanders pause: If we abuse civilians, it is going to come back to haunt us.

The Red Coat abuse generated the American Revolution. This military is stupid. They are confused as to why the Iraqis are daring to stand up. American colonists didn’t, why should anyone else?

Indeed, after 9-11, Americans didn’t roll over, so why should anyone else when abused?

* * *

Military commanders should know by now that their troops are relying on questionable information. The US has no legal standing to mandate whether the Iraqis do or do not offer amnesty.

France and Germany didn’t have any say in what the Americans decided to do after the Revolutionary War was over. Yet, America wants to be able to do what it denies other countries from dong.

Addington and Cleveland should know this. It’s called sovereignty.

Yet this military wants to take information without regard to how people are treated; conduct raids at odds with the Geneva Convention; and the results are what we have: Reckless disregard for the innocent.

There needs to be some real accountably for not just the misconduct, but the failure of the commanders to ensure the troops adhered to the 5100.77.

Why are the troops thinking they can do this?

Where else is this going on?

Can American citizens, upon return of the American military, expect to be “dealt with” in the same way?

If the commanders can’t control troops in combat, what’s going to ensure returning veterans, when they are around American civilians, are going to be in any better condition to act civilly?

What excuses will the military use, upon returning to the United States, to “vent their frustrations” on those who “just happen” to look like convenient scapegoats?

To what extent is the practice of “planning evidence of being an insurgent” linked with the National Guard-law enforcement practice of planting narcotics evidence on those they “just know” are criminals?

The abuses we’ve merely heard about in Iraq could very well be just the tip of the iceberg of what Americans have to face when the return, more so as the Supreme Court gives a green light to the abuses.

Judges who refuse to enforce the law can be impeached. We can also draft new rules that removes the judges more easily, especially in situations we now face – internal rebellion, a breakdown of command leadership, and a total disregard for the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

The US civilian population needs to get it in their heads the lesson of Nuremburg and Nazi Germany: The public has to be brought along on the notion that the RNC leadership needs to face war crimes trials.

This government has failed to do what should have been done in Iraq. The laws were clear. The challenges were known. The issue isn’t facts. The issue is incompetence, and reckless disregard for the clearly promulgated statutes, rights, and requirements.

Many people involved in the planning fell down. Military personnel are sent to school to learn academic things, and get qualified on certain planning-related activities. These are called program managers, analysts, and planners. Either they were ignored, or they didn’t remove themselves from something that was a disaster.

The excuse of civilian control of that contract activity is non-sense. When that requirement is delegated, it doesn’t mean that the military loses command authority. The commanders remain responsible for the results. This national leadership has delegated the responsibility to those who have failed; however, accountability cannot be delegated. This is a national leadership problem with the RNC. They cannot be trusted. Their results are abysmal.

If you want to understand what the RNC is all about, all you have to do is look at the unfolding Iraqi civil war. The RNC knew about this risk, pretended they weren’t told, and then recklessly embarked on an illegal war. They were in charge. The RNC controlled the agenda. Yet, despite total control, they still botched it. They can’t get any “more” control – they control everything. There’s no reason to believe they’re going to do anything else but continue botching it.

They will still be in charge until January 2007. That’s seven months. They’re acting as if “one day” they’ll finally get it right. They’re in charge in June 2006, nothing is in their way, and they still have no clue. This RNC crew is recklessly incompetent. They don’t listen, but they’re quick to move in the wrong direction regardless reality.

The RNC needs to be fired, removed from office, and forced to assent to lawful inquiry into what they have failed to do. In the meantime, We the People need to have an open discussion of what is going to be done to prevent this from happening again, while at the same time protecting the Constitution, preventing abuse of power, and protecting rights.

If we have to specifically state to the people like Addington and Cleveland what they are not allowed to do, then so be it. We have a Bill of Rights. We can have a Bill of Restrictions and Prohibitions.

Despite the abuses of Charles I, and the legacy of the American Revolution under King George, there are needed adjustments to prevent the abuse of power and protect rights. We have seven more months until January 2007 to learn what else is possible, take notes, and create solutions that will address what we have yet to learn. There’s more bad news on the way.

Read more . . .