Talk about a perfect storm brewing: Martial law on the horizon. If there's riots in Denver at the Democratic convention in August look out!
As reported by the AP yesterday, "A deal to allow delegates from Florida and Michigan to participate at the Democratic National Convention is unlikely before summer, party chief Howard Dean said Sunday". Howard Dean goes on further stating, "It's going to take some time to work that out because these candidates are really focused on these primary battles in ... Pennsylvania and West Virginia and North Carolina and so forth and so on," Dean told "Face the Nation" on CBS. "And so it's going to take some time to work this out. But I think we can work it out, and I want to work it out," he said.
But remember Obama's "the fierce urgency of now" as I explain the importance of ending the primary season sooner rather than later, under the fold...
With only two candidates remaining, Dean said the nominee should be evident by June 1.
"Unless this is a dead heat, there's no reason to go to Denver, if the unpledged delegates will make their preferences clear and the voters will make their preferences clear, which they will by the third of June, then we'll know who our nominee is and we can win," Dean said on CBS
So what happens if "things don't work out", as Howard Dean presupposes and there is a reason to go to Denver? Can our party and nation really afford another one of these violent, divisive, and costly conventions, which gave us Richard Nixon, seven more years of Vietnam, and Watergate?
One thing for sure is dead certain in the coming GE, neither Hillary's base alone nor Obama's base alone is strong enough to take-on McCain's base and prevail. In short, neither can do it alone. While we've been fighting amongst ourselves, the press and the MSM has given McCain time to consolidate his forces and brace for our attacks. But one thing's for sure, a Democratic party divided against itself cannot stand against McCain!
The only hope McCain has is that our Dem party will explode into a civil war, that our convention will be torn apart by rioting in the streets reminiscent of Chicago's in 1968. But what are the dire implications of mass rioting in the streets, if the flames of disappointment and rage burn out of control, carrying over to all of the rest of the 49 states, besides just losing the presidential election?
Who knows what evil lurks in Bush's sinister, megalomaniacal, sociopathic mind? Maybe Bush is hoping against hope, and I'm not putting anything past him at this point, that all the rioting will spread across the nation if Hillary is perceived as having stolen the nomination from Obama, or if Obama loses it outright, and thus giving Bush his most opportunistic opening yet to declare martial law.
If police state is his ultimate goal, he's got to be praying for our convention to explode into a ball of fury.
And he's already got all the power he ever needed to become dictator, without even firing the first shot in anger against us to do it, that is the power to declare martial law in any national emergency. Enter Presidential Directives NSPD-51 & HSPD-20:
It would be mighty convenient for him for our convention to turn violent with blood pouring into the streets like it did in Chicago, because nobody on our side could say he planned it! All he has to say is, "It was out of my hands. I had no other choice but to restore order before the emergency became untenable and totally out of control. I had no other choice but to suspend the elections and the Constitution until the danger to our nation passes"; and technically he'd be right(for once in his life) because rioting can be construed as "insurrection or rebellion", as the Constitution requires when suspending habeas corpus.
Of course, if this happens, I wouldn't look for him to be returning any of those powers congress already gave him during his 8 year tenure as president, any time soon. And there's no guarantee that he'd ever un-declare martial law, or an end to the "national emergency", once circumstances for assuming absolute power fell into his hands.
Why would I say this? If all of you have been reading the international online magazines like I have, you'd know that there are several nations are planning to press war crimes charges against Mister Bush and several of Bush's top advisors and civilian leaders after the "principle" offender leaves office in 2009.
Former Chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials, Benjamin Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:
"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."
Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes? By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.
Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it. But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.
Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
This would explain why McCain wants to withdraw from the UN altogether, forming a "League of Democracies" to take its place! McCain stated on Harball with Chris Matthews on September 17, 2007 his intention to do just that because, in his words, "China and Russia keep getting in our way". IOW, McCain doesn't like checks and balances at home and he damn sure doesn't like taking orders from the UN--or any other nation that will stand in their way.
If you don't think Bush is serious about the threat the world community poses to his own personal freedom, one need look no further than his 100,000-acre purchase of prime real estate in Paraguay, sitting on top of one of the largest water aquifers in South America. Looks like a perfect crime with the perfect getaway to me, unless his Plan A really isn't about leaving office at all, but just wanting to escape possible war crimes tribunals.
It seems like a stretch at first glance, but when one considers the overwhelming, compelling case for impeachment alone, the facts of Bush's war crimes and crimes against humanity pale in comparison, and must make the hair on the back of his neck stand-up. Why else would he buy 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay, instead of let's say his home state of Texas, unless he wanted to make damn sure his escape from the long arm of justice was final?
I don't trust him to keep his word, that he is really leaving, do you? Believing that he will and trusting that he will are two completely different animals. Let's see why I say I simply don't trust this man's word. This congressman doesn't trust him:
If anyone wonders why anyone shouldn't trust Bush, one need only look at the record, and the words spoken out of his own mouth:
And the coup d'grace:
Well, since we have already seen that we can't trust Mister Bush's "good intentions" or anything eminating from his lying lips, and failing the national emergency and resulting martial law I spoke of earlier, the 2nd best outcome for Bush would be for his closest ally and partner in crime to win the presidency.
And the only possible way for McCain to win the presidency is if the Dem party becomes embroiled in a civil war, fracturing and self-destructing for good, becoming so functionally impotent that it has no hope and fails to defeat him. And that's where I believe we are headed, folks, if we don't end this kitchen sink and Tanya Harding option primary season now!
This is why all of this infighting, inner-party feuding, squabbling, and blood-letting must end immediately, if not sooner! I've been warning for months now, that our party is in grave danger of self-destructing and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
If we lose in November, it's a win-win for Bush and McCain! If we have a national emergency caused by our own hands, Bush is off the hook for his war crimes committed in our names, and every other crime against the Constitution and the rule of law under his watch.
If McCain is elected, Bush is still the winner because he escapes war crimes trials, knowing that McCain would never see him prosecuted, impeached(yes you can still impeach him even after he leaves office), no seizure of assets, no roll-back of any of Bush's policies, and no end in sight to the war in Iraq. And you know McCain would never give back to the people, the Congress, or the Judiciary, any of the powers Bush stole under his claim of "the almost divine right of kings" unitary Executive theory.
