FROM FEAR IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Franklin D. Roosevelt promised this country “freedom from fear.” In keeping with most of his grandiose pronouncements, he spoke with a forked tongue. (As General Douglas MacArthur reputedly quipped, Roosevelt never told the truth if a lie would suffice.) In any event, today Americans live in a nation beset by ever-expanding fear and ever-contracting freedom. This is because all too many of them have forgotten that freedom from fear requires the wit to identify, and especially the courage to eliminate, the causes of fear—through their own exercise of their constitutional freedoms.
To be sure, there are possible reasons for fear: false-flag “terrorist” strikes, which could lead to attempts to impose “martial law” and to invoke new “emergency powers,” which could result in the suspension of elections and the setting up of a dictatorship, which could bring about the submersion of the United States in a North American Union, to name a few. Nonetheless, these possibilities, although real, are quite often exaggerated:
Yet the Internet is replete with dire prognostications that these and other disasters are about to descend upon the United States—and Americans can do next to nothing to forefend them. As these oracles proclaim the future, we are all doomed, doomed, doomed!
Beyond doubt, a dark purpose lurks behind not a few of these prophecies. Experts in disinformation and agents provocateurs spread mindless fear in order to impede Americans’ critical reasoning and thereby to foster political panic and self-destructive behavior. They attempt to condition people to accept the ruination, even disappearance, of their country as inevitable, if not imminent, and so to remain passive and apathetic, acquiescing in their victimization, because supposedly “nothing can be done.” They even try to convince Americans that, notwithstanding Representative Ron Paul’s candidacy, they have no choice but to saddle some swaybacked politician from the Republican or Democratic stables as President in 2008.
But even many of the honest, patriotic commentators who voice justifiable, articulate concerns about these possibilities are spinning their wheels unproductively. To too great a degree, they are merely preaching to the choir:
So, these commentators are doing a commendable job in reporting the facts; and their presentations are being understood.
Nevertheless, although exposure of evil and excoriation of evildoers are necessary, they are not sufficient. Remedial and protective actions are also wanted. Past acts of evil must be punished. Present acts of evil must be thwarted. And future acts of evil must be deterred. As to these requirements, though, all too many patriotic commentators are not providing effective leadership. They are accurately describing the disease, but not adequately (if at all) prescribing the remedy—telling Americans what is wrong with their country, but not directing them to what can be done, and should be done, and would be effective if done.
What can not or will not be done should be obvious.
First, forget the removal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney by “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, * * * high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, as the Constitution provides in Article II, § 4. To be sure, if implemented this procedure would prevent any future wrongdoing by these particular individuals under color of those particular offices. But that would neither solve, nor even allay, the underlying problem—because, whatever their personal demerits, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are merely symptoms, not sources, of America’s present difficulties. They are not the Strombolis of this country’s political marionette show, but only the Pinocchios. Even were they removed by impeachment and conviction, greedy and anti-constitutional special-interest groups, both domestic and foreign, would continue to pull the top-level politicians’ strings.
America is in the grip of a kakistocracy—misrule by the very worst people: the avaricious, the ambitious, the amoral. And America is in the grip of tyranny—because such public officials concern themselves primarily with the advancement of special interests, rather than with promotion of the general welfare. This sorry state of affairs, however, did not come to pass by accident. It is not a matter of a few egregiously bad individuals who somehow, against all odds, wormed their ways into public office. No—what prevails now is not the exception, but the rule. It is the manifestation of a veritable structure, even a system, of political (and many other kinds of) evil that has been superimposed on this country. So, what benefit would be achieved by removing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney from office? That, in the short term prior to January of 2009, they would be replaced by Nancy Pelosi as President and whomever she arranged to assume the position of Vice President?! Or that, in the long term after January of 2009, they would be replaced by Hilarity Clinton and her no less ridiculous running-mate?!
Besides, the Democratic Party does not want to impeach Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. For people as fanatically partisan as the Democrats, such reluctance appears remarkable—because, with Bush and Cheney gone, Pelosi would become President by operation of law; and the Democratic Party would control both Congress and the Executive Branch going into the 2008 national elections. Why would the Democrats not do everything they could to achieve that result?
One story the Democrats have put out for public consumption is that “they don’t have the votes” in the House, the Senate, or both. But why not? What more, or worse, misbehavior on the Administration’s part could possibly be required? Another story is that the Democrats want to let the Republicans stew in the Administration’s wrongdoing and incompetence, in order to encourage more chaos and create more public antipathy, and thereby increase the magnitude of the Democrats’ landslide in 2008. But why would they not anticipate an even greater landslide if they had already removed Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in disgrace, and in the process had discredited the Republican Party as a racketeering enterprise, in nationally televised trials in the Senate?
Well, modern politics are not the province of accidents, mysteries, or even really difficult questions. The foundation of the Democrats’ reluctance is that, in order to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, the Democrats would have to declare the Administration’s actions—such as the incursion into Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and so on—to be “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. And “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, not simply because those acts are impolitic or imprudent, but because they are unconstitutional. And if those acts are unconstitutional—and intentionally so, rather than merely the products of thoughtless negligence—then they are also criminal. See Title 18, United States Code, §§ 241 and 241. Thus, the slippery slope leads rather quickly to a black hole.
This is a possibility the Constitution itself foresees in Article I, § 3, cl. 7, but which the Congressional Democrats do not want to face, let alone to thrust upon the public’s attention, for at least three reasons:
(i) They cannot condemn the Administration in these particulars without also condemning themselves, many of them having voted for that legislation (and even now continuing to vote for yet more legislation of that ilk) under color of “the war on terrorism.”
(ii) Their public protestations notwithstanding, they want these statutes—unconstitutional as they may be—to remain on the books, so that the anticipated Democratic Administration can employ them after January of 2009. And,
(iii) The ulterior moving parties in the enactment of many of those statutes, and the people who expect to benefit most from their use in the future, are certain special-interest groups that the Democrats do not dare to expose, cross, or refuse to favor.
forget the 2008 national elections. Even if the Democratic Party prevails
in a landslide, in 2009 and thereafter nothing but the names will
change (and not to protect the innocent, either). Will a new Democratic
“Decider” (or “Decidetrix”) be any more of a constitutionalist, or
any less of a global fascist, than his (or her) Republican predecessor?
Will the relative undesirability of the new, versus the old, Administration
matter? For will not the same money-grubbing, vicious, violence-prone,
and irremediably anti-American special-interest groups, both domestic
and foreign, still control the flows of campaign contributions—still
salt their operatives throughout Congress, the Executive Branch, and
the most important agencies of the General Government—still populate
the leading private think tanks that generate “policy”—still dominate
the big mass media—in sum, still have a strangulating grip on the
throat of America’s political process? For part two click below.
here for part -----> 2,
© 2007 Edwin Vieira, Jr.
- All Rights Reserved
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
He can be reached at:
Second, forget the 2008 national elections. Even if the Democratic Party prevails in a landslide, in 2009 and thereafter nothing but the names will change...