Face it, the pols again proved they don't need you; they control the voting mach

[Guest guest]

S

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:31:00 -0800 (PST)

Face it, the pols again proved they don't need you; they

control the voting machines

 

 

 

Face it, the pols again proved they don't need you; they control the

voting machines

By Bev Conover

Online Journal Editor & Publisher

 

 

 

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_421.shtml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/160106votingmachines.htm

 

 

 

 

Jan 15, 2006, 01:35

 

 

To the Republicans' glee, following 18 hours of worthless show

hearings, the Democrats say they can't stop Samuel Alito's

confirmation for a seat on the US Supreme Court. Hogwash!

 

The truth is that they don't want to make the effort to block the

slippery, ultra-rightist Alito, even if it costs the people --

" rabble " as John Adams called them -- what little is left of their

freedoms. After all, George W. Bush said that " the constitution is

just a goddamned piece of paper. "

 

It's not that the Dems fear the reaction of the people if they attempt

to filibuster Alito's confirmation or manage, with the help of any

sane Republicans, to deny Alito a seat on the highest court. Why

should they?

 

 

After all, there is that elephant in the room that too many people

refuse to acknowledge: computerized voting equipment --

 

touch screens, optically scanned ballots, even punched cards that are

tabulated by easily rigged computers. The two things the Democrats

fear is angering their fascist power brokers who pony up the campaign

money that fattens the pockets of the corporate media and whatever

dirt Bush has on them, thanks to the illegal snooping of the FBI, the

CIA and the NSA.

 

 

 

 

The other wing of the party, the Republican, falsely claims the

occupant of the White House, as long as he/she is a Republicrat --

 

whether installed there legitimately or illegitimately, as in the

case of George W. Bush -- is entitled to his/her appointments. Where

is that written in the Constitution of the United States?

 

 

 

 

Nowhere. Article II of the constitution says, " He shall have Power, by

and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,

provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall

nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall

appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsuls, Judges of

the supreme Court, all other Officers of the United States, whose

Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be

established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment

of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President

alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department. " [Emphasis

added]

True, the framers sandbagged us by not requiring a two-thirds vote of

the Senate on Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, cabinet officers

and all the rest. Even at that, the constitution doesn't say a

president is entitled to have his/her choices rubber-stamped.

 

 

 

And Republicrats being Republicrats, whether they are ultra-rightists,

conservatives or moderates, never consider how their actions can come

home to bite them. An example of their shortsightedness is the 22nd

Amendment, limiting a president to two terms. Passed by the

Republican-controlled Senate of the 80th Congress in 1947, in a fit of

anger over Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to four terms, and

ratified on March 1, 1951, it was the Republicrats who felt the sting

of their handiwork because President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican,

could not seek a third term, had the ailing Ike wanted to try for

three. The Republicrats got stung again by their presidential term

limit amendment that prohibited their sainted Ronald Reagan, despite

being in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease, from seeking a third

term.

 

 

 

It's been all downhill for the few that have managed to hang onto the

White House for second terms since the ratification of the 22nd

Amendment. Call it the Lame Duck Syndrome. Richard Nixon, facing

impeachment, resigned in disgrace. Reagan engaged in the illegal

Iran-contra affair and, up until George W. Bush, racked up more debt

that all his predecessors combined. Clinton was impeached, not for his

real crimes (illegally bombing Kosovo, Serbian civilians, Baghdad,

Afghanistan, and Sudan; aiding and abetting Suharto, continuing

sanctions against Iraq; banning the sale of food, medicine and water

treatment chemicals to Cuba) but for lying about his sexual affairs.

And now we have George W., a vicious cheat, liar and war criminal, who

is a tiny step away from declaring himself a dictator, so don't be

surprised if he announces that an " election " in 2008 will imperil

" national security, " therefore, for the " protection " of the American

people, he ain't leaving.

 

 

 

After all, what incentive do lame ducks have to do the right thing? None.

 

The only incentive they have is to please their corporate masters in

order to land cushy positions -- little work, big pay -- when they

leave office. But that didn't occur to the Republicrats back in '47,

because they were blinded by their hatred for the dead Roosevelt and

the Democans, even though it was a Democan, Harry Truman, who ordered

two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and saddled us with the CIA and NSA.

That shows the Democratic Party was already three-quarters gone. After

that the only possibly real Democrat to gain the presidency was John

F. Kennedy, but he had to be eliminated before making a reelection

bid, so we'll never know for sure how much of a real Democrat he was.

 

 

And now the Republicrats, blinded by hubris, are wallowing in their

power, never giving a thought to the possibility that Samuel Alito,

once on the Supreme Court, may do a 180 on them. Ike got the surprise

when Earl Warren, his choice for chief justice, whom he believed to be

a moderate conservative proved to be an unabashed liberal --

 

that's back in the days when there were some real liberals, not

today's cowering Democans the Republicrats bogusly claim are liberals.

 

 

 

As for Alito, is it too far-fetched to think this guy may be something

other than he appears to be? Consider how he has made a career of

sucking up to Republicrats who could advance his climb up the ladder.

Is he merely a yes man or has he just been working toward the big

prize: a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? Do we really want

to find out? Because if he allies himself with Antonin Scalia,

Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, it will take only one more radical

" strict constructionist " on the court to cook us and give Bush

anything and everything he wants.

If the Democans can't put up a fight to keep Alito or any other

radical conservative off the court, what makes anyone think they will

have the guts to draw bills of impeachment against Bush and his whole

administration -- even if the powers behind the curtain rig the vote

to let them regain both houses next November?

 

 

 

If either wing of our one major party had a shred of decency and any

regard for the constitution they swore to uphold and defend, Alito and

any other nominee needing Senate confirmation should have been bounced

out the first time they refused to answer a question, waffled or

wavered. The American people have a right to know what they are

getting. And any Democan or Republicrat who quivers in fear of being

accused of " Borking " a nominee disgraces the country and us.

 

 

 

The same band of fascists who have taken over the Republican Party

also control the Democratic Party through the monstrous Democratic

Leadership Council. A fact that many have yet to face up to. But come

November, millions will dutifully cast votes on rigged equipment and

the powers that be will pretend to count them, knowing full well the

outcome beforehand.

 

 

 

Additional reading:

Bringing Down a Tyrant by Norman D. Livergood

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/completing2.htm

 

1998-2006 Online Journal

Email Online Journal Editor

editor