Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Transforming America

We the People need to provide the leadership: What will transform the American political and legal landscapes?

* * *

I was thinking about what Members of Congress were saying during the Iraq debate.

My thoughts:

GOP Positions in House Debate Are Disingenuous

Don't be fooled by the mushroom-cloud arguments the GOP is using. The President is privately meeting with advisors of what to do when troop escalation does not meet objective: Republicans are openly defending on the House floor a plan the President and NSC privately doubt will work, and expect to fail.

Notice the excuses the RNC House Members of using to get people to commit to something that is flawed: Same non-sense with terrorism, threats of a backlash.

Implicit RNC position, absurd momentum: "Bad things are going to happen if we don't keep doing bad things."

Ref Analysis of State of Union Speech on Troop Build-up.

Ref As of 2004, 1M Troops needed by 2008; troop build up in Iraq insufficient.

Ref Petraeus gets open support, but his assumptions are flawed: Iraq is not an insurgency, but a combined civil war-insurgency. This has never been planned for, much less articulate a strategy how combat troops will or will not resolve. Iraq is quicksand.

The error is to blindly follow Petreaus, especially when the President is privately planning for the failure of Petraeus and the escalation plan.

* * *

Recall the broad message of the ISG: It outlined options. This President ignored them, and is sticking with something that he doubts will work.

Look at the flawed argument. In simple terms, this is how the RNC is approaching the Iraq debate:

1. Ignore the doubts about the plan;

2. Assert bad things are avoided, without explaining why the bad things are likely or will be avoided.

3. Simply assert that the bad plan will avoid bad things, and get good things.

The GOP has essentially taken two desirable images -- disconnected from reality -- and arbitrarily placed them side by side arguing, "Because one is before the other, the first will lead to the second; and the second is an inevitable consequence of the first."

This is the same non-sense thinking the Administration used when arguing for war in Iraq. The same convoluted non-sense which created the mess, and inspired the voters to reject the mess is the same thinking this President is openly using to continue . . . [wait for it] with the mess.

Congress is pretending it is a credible institution that can check power. It cannot. It refuses to call the GOP non-sense what it is: Ridiculous, especially when the track record of the GOP is absurd.

___ There's been no respect for other plans outlined in the ISG;

___ The GOP is asserting, as it did on the eve of the Iraq invasion, that merely talking about a good thing will bring it about; and pretending that bad plans will avoid bad things simply by pretending that a plan cannot fail.

* * *

This is not leadership, competence, or accountability. It is recklessness disguised as something it is not.

The US government, especially the Congress, is not legitimate. It is a sham organization pretending that it is debating something, yet it's not saying what the President privately accepts: The President's plan will not work, and pretending that it will work is folly.

* * *

Emperor's New Clothes

A government which relies on folly to convince We the People and the world community to believe there is competent -- is foolish.

Foolish people, who pretend they are part of a responsive government but they are not, will continue doing foolish things.

This President, despite having no majority in Congress, plans to do what he keeps doing: Ignoring the law and prudence.

Foreign fighters take one message away from the American Congress "Debate": The imprudence will continue, and the only option -- other than Congress voluntarily ending or changing -- is for combat forces to impose grave and severe combat losses

The November 2006 is a ruse. The US Congress is not being responsive. It is talking about being responsive, but refusing to assert power. The only credible catalyst which may compel Congress to adjust -- as is required -- is sustained combat losses.

America’s momentum, as was the Japanese Empire in WWII, is illegal, unsustainable, but unwilling to adjust. Hitler and Napoleon learned the hard way. Members of Congress may have to learn the hard way again: If it you don't stop what is illegal and unsustainable, Congress is attached to the illegal, reckless consequences.

All 535 Members of Congress in the mind of foreign fighters and war crimes prosecutors:

- Complicit with war crimes;

- Unwilling to end what they have the power to end;

- Unwilling to assert power to prosecute the President;

- Unwilling to use their delegated powers to end what is illegal and unworkable.

* * *

Americans can debate all day long about the "big scary threats" overseas; or pretend that Putin is off his rocker or feeling sorry for having lost the Cold War.

No, the real problem in the US government, which refuses to stop this stupidity, and the refusal of free citizens to freely end what is imprudent, illegal, and reckless.

This can hardly be anything a Member of Congress can parade to American citizens, much less the world or battlefield opponents, as evidence of the superiority of democracy.

Rather, the absurd momentum shows the degree to which public loyalty to a reckless system on sheer volume, support, and momentum alone will drive people agreeing with tyranny to expand abuse.

The results are no different than the absurdity in Nazi Germany:

- People asserting their illegal activity was for a good thing;

- People expanding illegal, unlawful, reckless war in the name of power;

- People justifying abuse in the name of nation prestige and security;

- People freely joining the momentum out of fear of being harmed if they refused to oppose what was reckless abuse of power.

* * *

With this non-sense at the nation's highest levels, Americans cannot reasonably expect public policy to remain prudent, or that the national leadership will necessarily voluntarily assent to the basic form of prudence: The law.

Look in your corporate offices; consider the decisions of your leadership. When the leaders is rewarded for incompetence and folly, there is little prospect the needed oversight, review, and adjustment will occur as needed.

Rather, the mess will be left to those who are unable to rally the masses to their defense. The most noble will be destroyed in the name of compelling them to fit in with what is folly.

Americans should not be confused why the world opposes America: Americans refuse to consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Even in the wake of continuing combat losses and defeats, Americans assert they are committed to winning.

Problems can only be resolved through lawful means in court; or through open combat. Those are two of the major forums. Americans have chosen to pretend the latter will be avoided by avoiding the first; and have failed in both asserting both have proven America's superiority.

* * *

The thinking in America is absurd. Your leaders are buffoons. American citizens sent a message on November 2006, but the buffoons are doing more of the non-sense in the wake of Sept 2001: Being illogical.

Illogical people will continue doing stupid things. America has to decide how far you're willing to let this stupidity go. It is not stopping.

Wake-up: What is not stopped will continue; what continues, despite folly, will bring disaster. The prospect of disaster, when asserted as the reason to commit to something that is folly, will not avoid disaster, but bring more folly.

Americans have shown they are not rational people. Their delusion is their assertion they are the best, despite failing to consider what they are doing to contribute to what they hope to avoid.

The world does not view America as being rational, especially when it debates using non-sense arguments the President knows, or should know, are disconnected from reality.

Victory is not achieved by forcefully asserting non-sense; nor hoping that the undesired consequences will be avoided by asserting more non-sense.

America’s problem is that its leadership has failed, will not adjust, and despite combat losses and unwillingness to adjust, it hopes for something new.

America can dream and hope all it wants. The momentum is going in the wrong direction. The issue is how far this will go, and what may legally come to the table to compel this non-sense to end:

___ How many acres will Members of Congress agree should be destroyed in the District of Columbia before there is a review of this folly?

___ How many American civilians have to be put at risk?

___ How many wars will the President start, despite insufficient resources from Congress, but Congress refuses to contain the President?

* * *

Power, when it is not managed or contained, will expand. The error is for Americans to believe that unconstrained power will voluntarily constrain itself.

That which cannot be sustained, but continues, will either collapse from within; or cross a barrier without. By waging and supporting illegal warfare, the US Congress and President have crossed the line into war crimes.

Foreign fighters have, under the direction of the world military powers, the legal right, power, and authority to wage combat operations on, over, and adjacent to the United States.

This looming prospect of open combat has nothing to do with the American enemies abroad, but with the domestic enemies in the US Congress and Executive branch, who arrogantly defy their oath, refuse to constrain power, and recklessly pretend that non-sense is prudence.

American citizens are going to have to decide how many of your civilian friends you will be willing to see sacrificed before you agree: Your government is the problem; the problem is not abroad, but in the District of Columbia.

If you want your Constitution, the decision will be one for Congress and the American public to decide: How far will you let the President go before only foreign combat losses remain the last check on American tyranny.

This is where America finds itself. So much for checks and balances as the Framers thought they might work. The issue is what institutional changes have to be made -- outside the Amendment process, and with a New Constitution -- to compel Free people to do what they promise: Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

If American's don't agree with a system that will compel checks and balances, foreign fighters will compel Americans to agree with something else. The Constitution cannot credibly be called a credibly system of government when, in the name of opposing an enemy, the American people -- collectively -- assent to its inferiority.

The enemy opposes America for one reason: The US Congress refuses to oppose the President's illegal, reckless, and absurd defiance of the well intentioned checks and balances. The world is not required to continue groveling at the feet of a system which defies prudence, especially when the imprudence and recklessness is not called what it is: Tyranny.

* * *

We can go back and forth, all day long, about whether the American government will or will not work.

This blog has been about one thing: Calling to the attention of some what is happening. It doesn't do much good to keep talking about things that Americans, despite a call for change, will not accept.

___ When happens when free people freely give up their minds and choose to pretend that their loyalty to folly is success?

When the stupid people harm each other, nobody cares. But when stupid people expand their power, and affect others, that's a different story.

Stupidity will not stop when a nation has weapons to compel others to grovel at the feet of stupid people. It is absurd to use the world's opposition of that stupidity as "evidence" of your superiority.

The world opposes what is stupid, reckless, tyrannical, abusive, and arrogant.

* * *

What's within the scope of possibility:

___ A military coup

___ A civil war

___ A transnational revolution

___ Sustained combat operations against American civilians

___ Foreign fighter bombardment of the US Capitol

The American leadership arrogantly pretends that the war is distant. The problem, despite the folly, could be that the needed combat losses in the District of Columbia may embolden the US government to extend its tyranny.

The problem is this abuse of power is not stopping; and the prospect of adverse consequences -- should this momentum continue -- are viewed, when mentioned, as evidence that someone else has a problem.

* * *

The problem is that the US Constitution, as it was designed, does not work to credibly check and constrain power; and American citizens have given up their rights and minds to tyrants who talk about an illusory outcome without regard to whether that dream is possible.

Freedom abroad can never be justified on the back of abuse at home, especially when that abuse comes in the form of reckless disregard for prudence and reality.

* * *

Other options have been rejected. American are not permitted to engage in combat operations not violently overthrow the government. But they can legally push for change within this system; and legally craft and design a new system.

Make no mistake: The fact that Americans are not taking up arms and violently overthrowing this government does not mean that the lesser options are compromises; or that the lesser choices are not evidence of the rage and contempt Americans hold for this sham government.

Rather, it is the careful consideration of Americans who might otherwise see the possible wisdom of violent revolution has having the prudence to agree the legal process, as reckless as it is in defending American values, must be used:

___ State level prosecutions of the Members of Congress for war crimes and failure;

___ State-level investigation and disbarment of DOJ and White House counsel for complicity with war crimes;

___ State-level proclamations calling for Congress to investigate and impeach the Vice President and President;

___ Lawful delegation of power, authority, and right by We the People to foreign fighters to impose grave, severe, and adverse combat losses on the American government and combat forces worldwide.

* * *

Americans may not be legally allowed to engage in violent revolution, nor use what some might view to be the needed combat against the reckless US government, but there are legal ways to channel the image of what is required into what must be done.

All Americans leaders should know that the refusal to engage in open combat, and the refusal of American citizens to violently overthrow this government is not evidence that you are right, but says more about the discipline and respect for the rule of law of everyday Americans.

It may be the desire for revolution and violent change of government which propels American citizens to make a call, speak out, and legally oppose what is illegal;

IT may be the belief that the American government would be better off it were throwing the waste heap of history which inspires Americans to press for needed changes;

It may be the genuine concern that America’s government will only respond to sustained combat losses on the battlefield which might inspire some to press for additional indictments of the reckless DOJ and White House Staff for their complicity with war crimes.

* * *

Never mistake American’s respect for the rule of law, and their refusal to use illegal methods to bring about changes as a sign that they are happy with what is not working; or what they may believe should be lawfully destroyed and transformed.

This Congress, if it were to undergo sustained, lawful, and grave combat losses, would not be something I personally would care happens. Americans will be hard pressed, when given the chance to express their view, what they would like to see Congress endure for what this Congress has recklessly permitted.

Reasonable people oppose what this Congress is permitting to let spread; and reasonable people can legally permit foreign fighters to do what Americans do not have the legal right to do -- stand up for themselves, wage war, and violently overthrow a government which shows disdain for the founding principles.

* * *

Americans have figured out how to wage lawful war by proxy; and how to bring combat losses to the Nation's leadership -- it is through the lawful delegation of power to others.

The Capital markets will send money where it is needed.

___ Who do you think is paying for the weapons used to openly attack the US government abroad?

The same people who say they want Americans to oppose something. The same people are funneling money to both sides.

This government doesn't care who wins or loses; the people funneling the money are not doing this to win or lose, but to make money.

The war Americans are being asked to wage, support, and justify has nothing to do with American values, freedom, or security but with one thing: The power to get more power. Whether that power is measured in money, popularity, perceived respect, or blind devotion -- it doesn't matter.

* * *

This doesn't have to continue. Americans have to decide how much money they want diverted from schools; how many people they want to blindly support who do not deserve support.

Americans have options. They voted for change, but the US government is not giving them something new.

Americans are allowed to lawfully draft a New Constitution; transform the government; and create something that better does what the Framers intended.

It is not a requirement that the world be forced to choose between "this non-0sense we have" or the "possible threat of world opposition." This non-sense is giving us what we supposedly were promised could be avoided: Opposition.

The choice is not between failed leadership and bad consequences; but something new with many options. All that's required is a change.

This Congress was given the chance to change, but refuses.

* * *

The way forward is for Americans to decide that change is possible, things can adjust, and we can move to something that does not rely on fear or threats; and can be something that constructively solves problems without abuse.

The issue is: What level of abuse and destruction -- either in the mind, or in physical space -- must Americans physically and mentally endure to the point where they collectively say, "Enough is enough." We reached that point in November 2006. The problem is that there is more, and some think we have not had enough.

* * *

The US government continues to slide closer to thin ice. The American leadership cannot be assured their political positions will remain intact.

Americans know they have options. They can see there is a solution. The question is whether that solution will be something this Congress agrees with, or opposes. Regardless, the Congress is not required to assent to illegal activity; nor are Americans required to believe that Congress, in its present form, is eternal.

Change does not mean bad things; or that things will be inferior. Change can be an improvement, especially when it does less of the bad things, and more of the good things.

Americans are not served when they vote for change, but the American leadership refuses to change, as it should.

* * *

Non-violent, lawful revolutions are hard to anticipate, especially when they spread and gain strength without warning.

Americans are ready for a change. The question is whether the US Congress will be part of the transformation, or be transformed without any input.

We the People are not required to permit Members of Congress to have any input to the new oversight. We the People may legally create a new system that imposes power on the US government.

We the People are not required to stick with what doesn't work. We can solve this problem. There are many different ideas and solutions. These issues can be solved. There is a way forward. The future of America does not necessarily include this Congress and the US government as it is presently designed.

There is a way. The question is whether Americans would like to discuss a solution; or whether it would like to pretend that we are stuck with what is no longer providing solutions: The reckless US government.

We can talk. We can jointly agree to make new rules which denies Members of Congress privilege, power, and authority they have abused, not asserted, or refused to assert as required.

If you take nothing away from this blog, take this: Things can be solved, we are not required to keep doing what is not working, and those who have been abusing power can be held to account, even if they pretend they are above the law.

Where Congress refuses to enforce the law against the President, foreign fighters are imposing battlefield losses on the President. No American should be concerned that foreigners are doing what Congress refuses to do: Check power.

Members of Congress, when they say that they will not stop what is illegal, should be careful what they wish for: Legal consequences for having failed to assert their oath, use their minds, and be responsible. We the People can be responsible, especially when we have so many examples of what not to do.

"Don't be like Congress" is a bad rule. The better rule is: What will make Congress do what the Framers through Congress would do without question.

We have a Bill of Rights, yet some of the Framers thought there need not be a law or right expressed when Congress and the US government were not delegated the power to deny that right. Yet, in 2007 this Congress believes that it can deny rights without authority; then pretend that it alone can only be the source of reaffirming what was not legally taken away.

The error is for Americans to believe that the absurd legal arguments related to habeas deserve attention. They do not.

* * *

I would like for you to discuss with your friends the following:

___ What may be legally done to expand a non-violent revolution?

___ What institutional changes are required in the framework of the US government to compel the US government to do what the Framers thought they would naturally do?

___ What do you want to see foreign fighters lawfully do by way of lawful attacks on the US government, Members of Congress, and others complicit with war crimes?

You’re not allowed to advocate revolution, violence, or actively plan illegal activity. But you are allowed to talk about what you believe. Beliefs are not criminal.

It is legal to believe the following, so long as you do not take steps to put this illegal activity into effect:

___ You can believe that the US government is illegitimate;

___ You can believe that the US Congress is complicity with war crimes;

___ You can believe that the President is unfit for office;

___ You can believe that Members of Congress have defied their oath;

___ You can believe that the US government is the source of instability and abuse.

Americans should know, regardless your actions, that there are other nations, powers, and people around the globe putting these beliefs into effect. Your government has no power to prevent other nations from doing the following, which is with one goal in mind -- to do what Members of Congress refuse to do:

___ Constrain power;

___ Force abuse to end;

___ Compel accountability;

___ Respect human rights;

___ Enforce the law;

___ Impose military and combat consequences on Members of Congress and the President.

* * *

Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and other nations are asserting power. They are allowed to do this. The error is for Americans to miss the meaning of their assertion of power: Where Congress refuses to constrain what is illegal, other nations have a say and may legally oppose what is not lawful.

Americans should not think that you’re alone, or that you're stuck with your reckless government. Rather, look at the other avenues by which the desired outcome -- transformation of the US government to something better -- can be inspired.

There are a spectrum of options which new Members of Congress will have the chance to debate. I encourage all citizens to ask your candidates the simple questions:

___ What is their plan to improve things;

___ What will they do not ensure this abuse of power does not occur;

___ What will they do to build on what we have to make the US government do what it should do;

___ What is their plan.

* * *

The false argument is to suggest what we have is the best. it is not. There are solutions which this Government refuses to embrace: Listening to We the People.

The issue is what will compel, and not make discretionary, that simple solution: What will compel the US government to just stop, and listen; as opposed to continuing to enable what is reckless, unsustainable, and could be improved.

___ Demonstrations aren't working;

___ Combat losses aren't working;

___ Voting results are not working;

___ The prospect of jail time and indictments doesn't work.

___ The law, Constitution, and system of governance doesn't work.

* * *

The question is: Now that we've endured the list of options that have failed, when are we going to have a serious discussion about real solutions:

___ What needs to change;

___ What can lawfully be done;

___ What will compel the US leadership to do what they took an oath to do;

___ What will force the US leadership to not be stupid;

___ What will impose timely consequences on the US legal community for their assent to violation of the Constitution;

___ What is a solution to compelling the US leadership to be competent, open minded, and willing to assert their oath at all times, not just when the weather is favorable;

___ What will be a real solution to transforming the US government into something that is something we can be proud of, not embarrassed by?

* * *

There are many solutions. The US Constitution was not supported 100%. That is irrelevant. It is what we have.

The question is what will 51% of American -- outside the Amendment process, beyond the Power of the US government to influence -- support by way of a transformation of the US Constitution, and transform the way the US government and We the People interact.

We can create a legal board of directors whose job is to oversee the US government -- kind of like an intermediary body which has the power to do things; and which can be tightly regulated with very limited, finite powers, which very easy removal and dismissal options.

Something needs to change. The question is what will 51% of Americans support as something that really improves things, not transitions to something that appears better, but is worse.

* * *

I will not accept "the best we can hope for is more war crimes" as an option. No, our system should punish, not enable, war crimes.

I will not accept "the best we can hope for is partisanship" as inevitable. No, impossible problems can be changed into possible solutions.

I will not accept "the best we can hope for is muddling through" as required. No, we can choose to promote leaders who get out of the mud and lead us out of the mud.

Americans have to ask: Do we want more of the same; or are we willing to say, "This is really enough."

This doesn't have to continue. Things can be solved. There are solutions. The problems can be redefined into something that will compel a yearning for improvement.

The question is: How bad do you want it.

The time for talking is at hand. We the People need to openly discuss what will transform this system into something that is an improvement. I look forward to your ideas.