So how do we define our government as it is now?
Jun/26/2006 15:08
Mr. President,
America has officially become a bastardized imitation of what our founding fathers had built. I don't think we can even call ourself a republic anymore.
You and Cheney just came out vehemently condemning The New York Times story because they published the story which explains how you have been tracking bank transactions since 2001. They said your questionable reasons for not printing. The story was pretty weak compared to the public's right-to-know about the program. You Cheney and the other right-wing extremists would rather dictate who and what can be printed. You already have Rush Limbaugh, and Fox TV as well as several reporters to do just that, but you want ALL the media to walk in lock step with your White-House message of the day just like you had at the start of the Iraq war.
You are getting there slowly but surely. You have done what you can to install Bush-lovers in every key agency; ferreted out anyone who questions your policy, removed whistle-blower protections and threatened everyone who may leak with prosecution. Once you put a few reporters in prison you can be well on the way to completely transform our democratic republic.
According to the definition in his 1787 book, "Defense of the Constitutions," John Adams used the definition of "republic" in Samuel Johnson's 1755 "Dictionary" ("A government of more than one person").
But, Adams also made it clear that he thought of the English state as a republic because the executive, though single and called "king," had to obey laws made with the concurrence of the legislature.
The 750 plus signing statements you attached to each of the 700 plus laws passed by congress stating that you have the power to over ride each law makes it clear that you are not bound by laws passed by our Congress. With claims of executive privilege and national security, there are no checks and balances as afforded in our constitution.
So how do you describe our government as it is working right now? If you consider yourself above the law, as these signing statements suggest, it is not exactly a republic.
If I was a smart-ass, which I am. I could call our new government something between what Napoleon Bonapart created when he made himself Emperor of France (formerly a kingdom) after legally assuming political control of the French Republic as First Consul for life and a term-limited form of an absolute monarchy.
Absolute monarchy according to wikipedia, is a monarchical form of government where the ruler has the power to rule his or her land or country and its citizens freely, with no laws or legally-organized direct opposition in force. In an absolute monarchy, there is no constitution or body of law above what is decreed by the sovereign (king or queen). As a theory of civics, absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth.
So am I correct in assuming we live in a hybrid monarchy, a sort of term-limited absolute monarchy for now?
The only obstacle in continuing this term-limited absolute monarchy is the November election result.
But you could have an ace up your sleeve a deibold ace up your sleeve. The integration of electronic voting machines across the country could facilitate the manipulation of some software programs to reduce the risk of Democratic-led investigations into presidential abuse resulting in censure and potential impeachment.
Back in 2003, Walden O'Dell, the president of Diebold, the company who manufactured the electronic voting machines used in Ohio, the state which ultimately determined the outcome of the Presidential race, told Republicans in fund-raising letter in 2003 that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." You weren't really surprised that the exit polls claiming Kerry had the state were wrong were you?
According to Wkipedia. "Election Systems & Software (ES&S) (40-50%) and Diebold Election Systems (DES) (30-35%) are responsible for the integrity and processing of around 80% of United States election voting. Between them, these two companies provide voter registration, printing of ballots, the programming of the voting machines, the counting and tabulation of the votes, and the final reporting of the results for over 150 million Americans."
"Sequoia and Triad are two of the other major companies responsible for electronic voting machines."
Are you capable of twisting a few arms to convince these two companies to tweak their software this November? If you did you could become America's version of a Napoleon Bonapart the next two years! If the Republicans kept both houses there would be no danger of any embarrassing investigations and all you would need is your royal image on a gold coin.
I did not receive the normal thank you for writing auto-response from the White House.
America has officially become a bastardized imitation of what our founding fathers had built. I don't think we can even call ourself a republic anymore.
You and Cheney just came out vehemently condemning The New York Times story because they published the story which explains how you have been tracking bank transactions since 2001. They said your questionable reasons for not printing. The story was pretty weak compared to the public's right-to-know about the program. You Cheney and the other right-wing extremists would rather dictate who and what can be printed. You already have Rush Limbaugh, and Fox TV as well as several reporters to do just that, but you want ALL the media to walk in lock step with your White-House message of the day just like you had at the start of the Iraq war.
You are getting there slowly but surely. You have done what you can to install Bush-lovers in every key agency; ferreted out anyone who questions your policy, removed whistle-blower protections and threatened everyone who may leak with prosecution. Once you put a few reporters in prison you can be well on the way to completely transform our democratic republic.
According to the definition in his 1787 book, "Defense of the Constitutions," John Adams used the definition of "republic" in Samuel Johnson's 1755 "Dictionary" ("A government of more than one person").
But, Adams also made it clear that he thought of the English state as a republic because the executive, though single and called "king," had to obey laws made with the concurrence of the legislature.
The 750 plus signing statements you attached to each of the 700 plus laws passed by congress stating that you have the power to over ride each law makes it clear that you are not bound by laws passed by our Congress. With claims of executive privilege and national security, there are no checks and balances as afforded in our constitution.
So how do you describe our government as it is working right now? If you consider yourself above the law, as these signing statements suggest, it is not exactly a republic.
If I was a smart-ass, which I am. I could call our new government something between what Napoleon Bonapart created when he made himself Emperor of France (formerly a kingdom) after legally assuming political control of the French Republic as First Consul for life and a term-limited form of an absolute monarchy.
Absolute monarchy according to wikipedia, is a monarchical form of government where the ruler has the power to rule his or her land or country and its citizens freely, with no laws or legally-organized direct opposition in force. In an absolute monarchy, there is no constitution or body of law above what is decreed by the sovereign (king or queen). As a theory of civics, absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth.
So am I correct in assuming we live in a hybrid monarchy, a sort of term-limited absolute monarchy for now?
The only obstacle in continuing this term-limited absolute monarchy is the November election result.
But you could have an ace up your sleeve a deibold ace up your sleeve. The integration of electronic voting machines across the country could facilitate the manipulation of some software programs to reduce the risk of Democratic-led investigations into presidential abuse resulting in censure and potential impeachment.
Back in 2003, Walden O'Dell, the president of Diebold, the company who manufactured the electronic voting machines used in Ohio, the state which ultimately determined the outcome of the Presidential race, told Republicans in fund-raising letter in 2003 that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." You weren't really surprised that the exit polls claiming Kerry had the state were wrong were you?
According to Wkipedia. "Election Systems & Software (ES&S) (40-50%) and Diebold Election Systems (DES) (30-35%) are responsible for the integrity and processing of around 80% of United States election voting. Between them, these two companies provide voter registration, printing of ballots, the programming of the voting machines, the counting and tabulation of the votes, and the final reporting of the results for over 150 million Americans."
"Sequoia and Triad are two of the other major companies responsible for electronic voting machines."
Are you capable of twisting a few arms to convince these two companies to tweak their software this November? If you did you could become America's version of a Napoleon Bonapart the next two years! If the Republicans kept both houses there would be no danger of any embarrassing investigations and all you would need is your royal image on a gold coin.
I did not receive the normal thank you for writing auto-response from the White House.