One of the US Attorneys (the one famous for the episode that led to the "you can't handle the truth" statement by a militant anti-American values soldier, while being questioned by that US Attorney) was a guest on Hardball today. Yes, Iglesias.
He says there was not one case in his district where an honest prosecution of voter fraud could take place.
But more importantly, he now realizes the scope of the problem and what the problem really is. The vast expanse of the problem. The danger.
While watching I was reminded of the Olviedo Voice thread (only old timers will recall that thread) on this blog where I debated with the Editor of that paper.
I dug up evidence that federal tax money was being diverted to "christian" groups so they could write things for the government.
Propagandus maximus. This was a long time ago. Meanwhile Monica Goodling was doing her thing as we blogged. Meanwhile the pentagon et. al. was hiring "journalists" to write stories for them. Meanwhile warrantless spying on Americans was taking place. Meanwhile ...
Our denial of the import of the discovery kept us from following it to where it led, because, we did not want to go there. In fact we "could not handle the truth".
We wanted to find and solve the problem we imagined ... but if we had let that go to its natural conclusion, let the problem "be all it could be", we would have had to conclude that all this unbelievable corruption was just a tiny part of the tip of the iceberg. We had not discovered the iceberg ... just its tip.
We can't handle the truth. Only the tip.
So, my strategy became a strategy to handle as much of it, in what I say and post, as we are capable of.
"Impeachment is off the table" is a statment that really says that America is so good that the founding fathers put an appendix (a body part we remove if it starts to hurt) in the constitution.
It is called the impeachment clause. It is in the section dealing with the administrative department. The president's one third. But we can't go there. We can't handle the truth governmentally.
That clause wasn't placed into the part of the constitution that deals with congress (the Article I one third) or the judicial (the Article III one third) ... it was put where it belongs. In the Article II ("commander in chief") one third.
Can you handle this truth:
this administration is an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. What is hampering us is that we see such an attempt as not illegal unless it is a "violent" attempt. (that is the black and white reading of the law.)
When it comes along with unpresidented abuse and disobedience of the law, I must say that is violence. It does violence to our way of government and we must grow to grasp it.
Gross violence has been done to our institutions. The notion of "violence" does not require, for example, murder to occur before violence exists, it just requires harm of a particular kind. We have seen scads of that.
"Violence" of the overthrow of the government type, does not require torture to occur before violence against our form of government exists. But we have scads of evidence and proof of torture.
We really do have clear and convincing evidence of the "violent" overthrow of the American government, but we fail to recognize it. Because of the way we define "violence".
At our peril:
vi·o·lent - adjective
1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2. caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3. intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5. furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.
6. of, pertaining to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact.
(Dictionary, emphasis added). Treason is the reason we must impeach. Cheney first, then Bush.
Impeachment, like peace, is not just for the lefties any more, it is for americans. It is the first thing we must do now before it becomes too close to the last thing we do as americans.
All we are waiting for is the republicans to get it and join the antibodies to neutralize the infection.
What people don't realize, too, is that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are white racist shows, too. Why do black callers to these 2 corporate fascists' shows, always announce that they're black? "Sean, I'm a black guy, and..." "Rush, I'm a black woman, and..."
You never hear, "Sean, I'm a white guy, and..."
Only blacks announce that they are black, on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity shows. If they're legitimately black callers, in the first place. On these Ron Poppeil info-mercial shows.
"Sean, I'm a black guy, BUT I agree with everything you say!"
"Rush, I'm a black woman, BUT I agree with everything you say!"
So their racist white audience can say, "Gee, even BLACKS agree with Rush/Sean!!! We must be right!!!"
I've heard people say that's because less black people call these shows. Well, less black people call ALL other shows, because there's less black people...and they don't announce that they're black! You WOULD do that, if you want to convince your racist white-only audience, that blacks actually listen to and call into your show!
FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! Like all the other FAKE stuff from the Great White Men's Party...
I read somewhere, that there's not ONE black Republican congressman...is that true?