A fan group for Robert Anton Wilson

robert anton wilson, robert anton wilson quotes, robert anton wilson books, robert anton wilson explains everything, robert anton wilson audio, robert anton wilson illuminati, robert anton wilson maybe logic, robert anton wilson prometheus rising

Saving A President (uber-blogger Lendman)

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

=============================================
Saving a President
By STEPHEN LENDMAN

In his first year in office, the widely-followed Cook Political
Report
had this assessment of George Bush’s early months as president:
"Looking back over his first five months in office, President George
W. Bush and his administration started off to a strong, fast start
but
now, his future seems far less certain. Not only are Bush’s overall
job approval ratings slumping, but his disapproval ratings are
climbing (and) after a strong start, the last three months have been
less than auspicious for this new President. The good news….is that
they have plenty of time before the next presidential (or) mid-term
elections. The bad news is that they have a lot of repair work to do
and had better get started." They wasted little time doing it, but no
one (at least the pubic) knew in June what lay ahead in September.

George Bush entered office with an approval rating around 50%. It
rose
a little at first, then slumped moderately as the Cook Report
suggested. Everything changed dramatically September 11. Bush’s
rating
skyrocketed instantly hitting a temporary high around 90% and
remained
above 80% through year end. That momentous day transformed a mediocre
president overnight with some observers incredibly comparing him to
Lincoln, FDR and Churchill combined.

It was laughable then and ludicrous now for a pathetic caricature of
a
president and man so hated he’s barely able to hang on to avoid what
growing vocal numbers in the country demand – his head and removal
from office by impeachment along with Vice-President Cheney.

Today again, George Bush finds himself in a precarious position at
the
least. He insists on maintaining a failed policy a growing majority
in
the country wants ended. As a result, his approval rating is scraping
rock bottom in polls likely "engineered" to keep it from winning all-
time bottom honors as the lowest ever for a sitting president. Dick
Cheney is less fortunate, however, at a bottom-scraping 12% that’s
the
lowest ever for a president or vice-president by far and then some.

With that in mind, here’s how the Cook Political Report assesses
things as of June 29, 2007: "….after six and a half years of George
W. Bush’s presidency, the Republican ‘brand’ has been badly
tarnished.
As a result, it would take an enormous amount of luck for Republicans
to hold the White House or win back control of the Senate or House,
let alone (do all three)….the GOP (will need) a long and painful
rebuilding process (and) recapturing the White House or congressional
majorities (is) unlikely in the near future." The report suggests a
possible Republican apocalypse even though it notes Democrats have
failed to end the Iraq war, have only delivered on one of their six
major platform planks (increasing the federal minimum wage), and are
scorned as well.

With 18 months to go, what’s a president to do to hang on, run out
the
clock, and leave office through the normal front door process of his
term expiring, not the result of the Senate voting him out earlier by
"the (required) Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" –
hard as that is to do as history shows.

Politicians know, and especially presidents, when in trouble – change
the subject. It’s being changed by ignoring reality, aided by healthy
offerings of the usual kinds of industrial strength corporate media
hyperventilating.

It features George Bush and his supportive generalissimo and other
top
brass in Iraq in the lead. They continue asking for more time, insist
the disastrous "surge" is working, say it just needs a chance, and
that withdrawing too soon would trigger a bloodbath on the order of
the Cambodian killing fields according to an earlier preposterous
April claim. Unmentioned is the continued bloodbath caused by the US
presence that won’t end until all American and other hostile foreign
forces are withdrawn.

That won’t happen according to recent reports with the National
Review
Online and other sources recently saying the administration intends
to
escalate its strength on the ground, not curtail it. More troops may
be brought in, and the Air Force is increasing its hardware. The
powerful B 1 bomber is back (capable of carrying 24 ton bombs) and
making multiple daily and/or nightly strikes. A squadron of A-10
"Warthog" attack planes were sent as well along with additional F-16C
Fighting Falcons. Bombing runs have intensified dramatically, and the
level of violence, deaths and destruction overall is increasing. The
Navy is contributing as well with the USS Enterprise sent to the Gulf
that may or may not replace one of the two Fifth Fleet carriers
already there.

In recent months, the Air Force also doubled its intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts using Predator drones
(capable of striking targets as well as spying), high altitude U2s,
and sophisticated AWACS planes. It all points to one thing on the
ground and back home. Congress can debate all it wants. No Iraq
withdrawal is planned, the conflict is being escalated, and the only
issue on the table is selling the present course to the public with
Congress already signed on showing debate is for show, not for real.
The hard sell is beginning by the timeworn, yet tried and true, sure-
fire method of scaring people to death to go along and in this case
threatening them as well.

On July 17, George Bush issued another of his many presidential "one-
man" decrees titled "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain
Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." More than any
other chief executive in the nation’s history, this President abuses
this practice egregiously as another example of his contempt for the
law.

Economist and journalist Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 – 1995) wrote in
his
extremely important and revealing book "Cracks in the Constitution:"
The US Constitution "nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a
President (the) power (to make) new law" by issuing "one-man, often
far-reaching" executive order decrees. However, Lundberg explains
"the
President in the American constitutional system is very much a de
facto king….(he is) by far the most powerful formally constituted
political officer on earth." He has "vast power (and) stands in a
position midway between a collective executive (like the British
system) and an absolute dictator." Lundberg wrote those words over 27
years ago when George Bush was busy making millions (the result of
friendly bailouts) from successive oil business ventures that
flopped.

George Bush’s family connections delivered for him in business, in
spite of his ineptitude, and finally gave him the grand prize of the
presidency he exploited fully ever since. For him and those around
him, the law is just an artifact to be used, abused or ignored at his
pleasure. He earlier usurped "Unitary Executive" power to claim the
law is what he says it is and in six and half years in office issued
more signing statements (over 800) than all past presidents combined.
The result is he expanded presidential power (already immense as
Lundberg explained) at the expense of the other two branches by
shifting it dangerously toward unlimited executive authority,
otherwise known as tyranny.

The Constitution has no provisions for "Unitary Executive" power or
the right of the chief executive to issue signing statements that
hasn’t deterred this President from doing as he pleases. There’s also
no authorization for issuing Executive Orders, as just noted, beyond
the following vague language Lundberg explained constitutes the
"essence of presidential power….in a single sentence."

Specifically, Article II, section 1 reads: "The executive power shall
be vested in a President of the United States of America." That
simple
statement, easily passed over and misunderstood, means the near-
limitless power of this office "is concentrated in the hands of one
man." Article II, section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: "The
President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
without saying Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as
well
as execute them even though nothing in the Constitution specifically
permits this practice.

George Bush takes full advantage within and outside the law. His July
17 Executive Order is another case in point, but a particularly
egregious and dangerous one. It starts off: The President’s power
stems from "the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America" as well as
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act he invokes as well.
The order then continues:

    — "….due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by
acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and
undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political
reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi
people," George Bush usurped authority to criminalize the anti-war
movement, make the First Amendment right to protest it illegal, and
give himself the right to seize the assets of persons violating this
order.

In a message to Congress on the same date, George Bush then stated:

    — "….I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order
blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose
a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that
have
the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq
or
the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic
reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide
humanitarian
assistance to the Iraqi people."

In effect, George Bush, on his say alone and in violation of the
Constitution, criminalized dissent July 17, 2007. By so doing, he
shifted the nation one step closer to full-blown tyranny with other
tightening measures sure to follow

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

3 Responses to “Saving A President (uber-blogger Lendman)”

  1. admin says:

    On Jul 23, 3:28?pm, RMJon23 <rmjo…@aol.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

    > =============================================
    > Saving a President
    > By STEPHEN LENDMAN

    > In his first year in office, the widely-followed Cook Political
    > Report
    > had this assessment of George Bush’s early months as president:
    > "Looking back over his first five months in office, President George
    > W. Bush and his administration started off to a strong, fast start
    > but
    > now, his future seems far less certain. Not only are Bush’s overall
    > job approval ratings slumping, but his disapproval ratings are
    > climbing (and) after a strong start, the last three months have been
    > less than auspicious for this new President. The good news….is that
    > they have plenty of time before the next presidential (or) mid-term
    > elections. The bad news is that they have a lot of repair work to do
    > and had better get started." They wasted little time doing it, but no
    > one (at least the pubic) knew in June what lay ahead in September.

    > George Bush entered office with an approval rating around 50%. It
    > rose
    > a little at first, then slumped moderately as the Cook Report
    > suggested. Everything changed dramatically September 11. Bush’s
    > rating
    > skyrocketed instantly hitting a temporary high around 90% and
    > remained
    > above 80% through year end. That momentous day transformed a mediocre
    > president overnight with some observers incredibly comparing him to
    > Lincoln, FDR and Churchill combined.

    > It was laughable then and ludicrous now for a pathetic caricature of
    > a
    > president and man so hated he’s barely able to hang on to avoid what
    > growing vocal numbers in the country demand – his head and removal
    > from office by impeachment along with Vice-President Cheney.

    > Today again, George Bush finds himself in a precarious position at
    > the
    > least. He insists on maintaining a failed policy a growing majority
    > in
    > the country wants ended. As a result, his approval rating is scraping
    > rock bottom in polls likely "engineered" to keep it from winning all-
    > time bottom honors as the lowest ever for a sitting president. Dick
    > Cheney is less fortunate, however, at a bottom-scraping 12% that’s
    > the
    > lowest ever for a president or vice-president by far and then some.

    > With that in mind, here’s how the Cook Political Report assesses
    > things as of June 29, 2007: "….after six and a half years of George
    > W. Bush’s presidency, the Republican ‘brand’ has been badly
    > tarnished.
    > As a result, it would take an enormous amount of luck for Republicans
    > to hold the White House or win back control of the Senate or House,
    > let alone (do all three)….the GOP (will need) a long and painful
    > rebuilding process (and) recapturing the White House or congressional
    > majorities (is) unlikely in the near future." The report suggests a
    > possible Republican apocalypse even though it notes Democrats have
    > failed to end the Iraq war, have only delivered on one of their six
    > major platform planks (increasing the federal minimum wage), and are
    > scorned as well.

    > With 18 months to go, what’s a president to do to hang on, run out
    > the
    > clock, and leave office through the normal front door process of his
    > term expiring, not the result of the Senate voting him out earlier by
    > "the (required) Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" –
    > hard as that is to do as history shows.

    > Politicians know, and especially presidents, when in trouble – change
    > the subject. It’s being changed by ignoring reality, aided by healthy
    > offerings of the usual kinds of industrial strength corporate media
    > hyperventilating.

    > It features George Bush and his supportive generalissimo and other
    > top
    > brass in Iraq in the lead. They continue asking for more time, insist
    > the disastrous "surge" is working, say it just needs a chance, and
    > that withdrawing too soon would trigger a bloodbath on the order of
    > the Cambodian killing fields according to an earlier preposterous
    > April claim. Unmentioned is the continued bloodbath caused by the US
    > presence that won’t end until all American and other hostile foreign
    > forces are withdrawn.

    > That won’t happen according to recent reports with the National
    > Review
    > Online and other sources recently saying the administration intends
    > to
    > escalate its strength on the ground, not curtail it. More troops may
    > be brought in, and the Air Force is increasing its hardware. The
    > powerful B 1 bomber is back (capable of carrying 24 ton bombs) and
    > making multiple daily and/or nightly strikes. A squadron of A-10
    > "Warthog" attack planes were sent as well along with additional F-16C
    > Fighting Falcons. Bombing runs have intensified dramatically, and the
    > level of violence, deaths and destruction overall is increasing. The
    > Navy is contributing as well with the USS Enterprise sent to the Gulf
    > that may or may not replace one of the two Fifth Fleet carriers
    > already there.

    > In recent months, the Air Force also doubled its intelligence,
    > surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts using Predator drones
    > (capable of striking targets as well as spying), high altitude U2s,
    > and sophisticated AWACS planes. It all points to one thing on the
    > ground and back home. Congress can debate all it wants. No Iraq
    > withdrawal is planned, the conflict is being escalated, and the only
    > issue on the table is selling the present course to the public with
    > Congress already signed on showing debate is for show, not for real.
    > The hard sell is beginning by the timeworn, yet tried and true, sure-
    > fire method of scaring people to death to go along and in this case
    > threatening them as well.

    > On July 17, George Bush issued another of his many presidential "one-
    > man" decrees titled "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain
    > Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." More than any
    > other chief executive in the nation’s history, this President abuses
    > this practice egregiously as another example of his contempt for the
    > law.

    > Economist and journalist Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 – 1995) wrote in
    > his
    > extremely important and revealing book "Cracks in the Constitution:"
    > The US Constitution "nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a
    > President (the) power (to make) new law" by issuing "one-man, often
    > far-reaching" executive order decrees. However, Lundberg explains
    > "the
    > President in the American constitutional system is very much a de
    > facto king….(he is) by far the most powerful formally constituted
    > political officer on earth." He has "vast power (and) stands in a
    > position midway between a collective executive (like the British
    > system) and an absolute dictator." Lundberg wrote those words over 27
    > years ago when George Bush was busy making millions (the result of
    > friendly bailouts) from successive oil business ventures that
    > flopped.

    > George Bush’s family connections delivered for him in business, in
    > spite of his ineptitude, and finally gave him the grand prize of the
    > presidency he exploited fully ever since. For him and those around
    > him, the law is just an artifact to be used, abused or ignored at his
    > pleasure. He earlier usurped "Unitary Executive" power to claim the
    > law is what he says it is and in six and half years in office issued
    > more signing statements (over 800) than all past presidents combined.
    > The result is he expanded presidential power (already immense as
    > Lundberg explained) at the expense of the other two branches by
    > shifting it dangerously toward unlimited executive authority,
    > otherwise known as tyranny.

    > The Constitution has no provisions for "Unitary Executive" power or
    > the right of the chief executive to issue signing statements that
    > hasn’t deterred this President from doing as he pleases. There’s also
    > no authorization for issuing Executive Orders, as just noted, beyond
    > the following vague language Lundberg explained constitutes the
    > "essence of presidential power….in a single sentence."

    > Specifically, Article II, section 1 reads: "The executive power shall
    > be vested in a President of the United States of America." That
    > simple
    > statement, easily passed over and misunderstood, means the near-
    > limitless power of this office "is concentrated in the hands of one
    > man." Article II, section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: "The
    > President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
    > without saying Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as
    > well
    > as execute them even though nothing in the Constitution specifically
    > permits this practice.

    > George Bush takes full advantage within and outside the law. His July
    > 17 Executive Order is another case in point, but a particularly
    > egregious and dangerous one. It starts off: The President’s power
    > stems from "the authority vested in me as President by the
    > Constitution and the laws of the United States of America" as well as
    > the International Emergency Economic Powers Act he invokes as well.
    > The order then continues:

    >     — "….due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the
    > national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by
    > acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and
    > undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political
    > reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi
    > people," George Bush usurped authority to criminalize the anti-war
    > movement, make the First Amendment right to protest it illegal, and
    > give himself the right to seize the assets of persons violating this
    > order.

    > In a message to Congress on the same date, George Bush then stated:

    >     — "….I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order
    > blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose
    > a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that
    > have
    > the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq
    > or
    > the

    read more »

  2. admin says:

    Well, I wonder. You just hope this guy’s dead wrong. But then his
    massive doomsday scenario has very many moving parts, and let’s keep
    in mind non-fungibility. Lendman reminds me of about eight other guys
    who have roughly the same background and strike similar tones. (In
    particular there’s a Craig Hulet-y mood here, or at least it seems so
    _to me_.)

    I hope Lendman proves to be a good Conspiracy Artist (better than he
    knows?) rather than some sorta seer.

    But you gotta hand it to him: he gives good adrenaline buzz, eh? Late
    summer Armageddon, anyone?

    Yea, verily, to whatever extent this scenario plays out (I hope zero
    but I ain’t holdin’ mah breath), I just want to grab Chimpy by the
    lapels and yell at him, "Listen! Little man!.."

  3. admin says:

    [Here's another...]

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html

    Former Reagan Official Warns of Threat to Constitutional
    Democracy, Calls for Impeachment

    Impeach Now
    Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy

    By Paul Craig Roberts
    counterpunch – July 16, 2007

    Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a
    year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state
    at war with Iran.

    Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for
    dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are
    triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency.
    Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael
    Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and
    others suggest that Americans might expect a series of
    staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near
    future.

    Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush
    administration will not bow to expert advice and public
    opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is
    that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular
    position with false flag operations that can be used to
    expand the war to Iran.

    Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the
    failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators
    jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq’s
    border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a
    majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney
    and a near-majority favoring Bush’s impeachment. The
    Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to
    scare the American people and the Congress back in line
    with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney
    have fostered.

    William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is
    "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from
    electoral wipeout in 2008. Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon
    nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the
    bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to
    start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the
    wings to be attacked in a third war.

    The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to
    resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some
    blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about
    staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by
    federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by
    the media, but even the captive media was unable to
    scare people with such transparent sting operations.

    If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in
    the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive"
    at home, it will have to conduct some false flag
    operations that will both frighten and anger the
    American people and make them accept Bush’s declaration
    of "national emergency" and the return of the draft.
    Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any
    real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

    A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by
    the captive media as a vindication of the
    neoconsevatives’ Islamophobic policy, the intention of
    which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that
    are not American puppet states. Success would give the
    US control over oil, but the main purpose is to
    eliminate any resistance to Israel’s complete absorption
    of Palestine into Greater Israel.

    Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure"
    were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar
    Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago
    Tribune that Americans have become complacent about
    terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that
    America will soon be hit hard?

    Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the
    Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a
    lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by
    this time next year, the American public’s (sic) going
    to have a very different view of this war."

    Throughout its existence the US government has staged
    incidents that the government then used in behalf of
    purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued.
    According to a number of writers, false flag operations
    have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During
    the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set
    off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police
    regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic
    orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag
    operations are a commonplace tool of governments.

    Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into
    two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran
    shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to
    remove opposition to its agenda?

    Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and
    integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the
    truthfulness of the corporate media.

    Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German
    election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and
    push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator.
    Determined tyrants never require majority support in
    order to overthrow constitutional orders.

    The American constitutional system is near to being
    overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which
    Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for
    overthrowing our constitutional democracy?

    [  Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the
    Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate
    Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and
    Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor
    of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at:
    PaulCraigRobe…@yahoo.com ]