A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS - Part II

"No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it.
And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the
perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.
Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must
take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system
of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with
weapons of mass murder."

With all the research and expert opinions available to POTUS, one would expect that the holder of our highest executive office would be better informed. Those proclaiming radical forms of Islam are actually a small minority of Muslims. The theology offered by these radicals is a perversion of the teachings found in the Holy Koran and even breaks faith with "hadith" (oral traditions regarding how Muhammad lived his life). The threat offered by these radicals is real, but it has also been extremely exaggerated. The threat has been exaggerated with a political agenda in mind.

"Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch
attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to
challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they
murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead
a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing
the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our
freedom, and we will fight to keep it."

The aim of George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez and others working according to the Bush administration agenda is to seize power that is not in keeping with the role and rules provided by the Constitution. In a letter sent to Attorney General Gonzalez by Senator Arlen Specter, there were 15 questions that directly sought to understand how President Bush (et al) could rightly justify the unprecedented usurpation of powers specifically delineated and given to congress by Constitution, established case law and statute.

But one of the effective methods of keeping us in the dark about our own problems is to re-direct our attention to something else. As long as the president directed our eyes toward Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, we would not worry so much about what was happening here, on our own soil, to erode our civil liberties, undermine our freedom and weaken our nation.

"In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments
and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers
alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to
our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat.
By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to
fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own
ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be
certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never
surrender to evil."

The greatest threat to our standing in the world is not terrorism; it is fascism from within our own borders. Lawrence Britt, a political science professor, has identified 14 major characteristics of fascism based on a historical review of fascist governments and movements. Including regimes headed by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, Pinochet, etc. Since President Bush took office 11 of the 15 characteristics have manifested in the policies, practices and actions of the Republican/ultra-conservative controlled government. (www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html)

"America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that
saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up
democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of
history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on
the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their
leaders -- and for the others, their day will come."

When has American been "isolationist" in its policies? The last isolationist movement in this country was pre-WWII. Over the last 50 years there has not been an isolationist tendency in any of our actions. We were actively engaged in a "cold war" that involved us in NATO, SEATO, the UN, Korea, Vietnam, Israel, Kosovo, Bosnia, Palestine, India, China… and the list continues…. What isolationism is Mr. Bush trying to address?

The phrase "call of history" smacks of the term "manifest destiny" and "prophecy." Both of those terms are cause to fear anyone that uses either. There is an implication that the United States has a divine role in pushing our will—and our form of democracy—down the throat of others based upon some divination or revelation. The intertwining of religion and government—one of the major characteristics of fascism—is abhorrent and repugnant to the Constitution. Using religious principles as guides for domestic and foreign policy is the first step in creating a theocracy, an authoritarian form of government not allowed by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

"We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a
National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new
democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First,
we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will
be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized."

Again, some of what is expressed here is cause for concern. What is Mr. Bush trying to marginalize? In a democracy all voices are heard and there is room for opposition to be expressed. Insurrection cannot be marginalized. Abraham Lincoln acknowledged this as a reality. Insurrection has to be defeated and, once conquered, the opposition must be given an appropriate channel to vent and express opposing views. Our nation did not heal because the union was held together by military victory. It took several decades of struggle just to heal the wounds of war. Over 100 years would pass before we finished addressing some of the evils that brought us to civil war in the first place. What we see in Iraq is an effort to marginalize rather than an effort to incorporate and cooperate.

But this is to be expected. Giving birth to a democracy is messy business. But it will not occur as long as the Iraqi people are dependent upon US might and aid to be the primary impetus behind the freedom movement. It will not happen as long as the stated goals are to marginalize any faction of that society. It will not happen until the Iraqi people are controlling their own destiny. Do we need to support that effort? Well, we started the process, so we have some inherent obligations. But how we have attempted it to date is seriously flawed.

"Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi
government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can
experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets
while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the
enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their
allies in the cause of freedom."

The above statement is a prima facie case proving the flaws of our involvement in Iraq. We are so wrapped up in the problems of reconstruction and corruption in Iraq, but we don’t seem to be able to address those very problems in our own government. The response to Katrina and Rita along our southern Gulf States is still demonstrating a lack of reconstruction. The expenditures for the emergency response in our Gulf States are outrageously wasteful and showing a pattern of institutionalized corruption or stupidity (we’re not sure which). The corruption and waste being demonstrated in US funded contracts serving Iraq and our troops in that region—especially those involving Halliburton—is in the news on a regular basis. Our congress is being rocked with the Abramoff lobbyist scandals that demonstrate our own enmeshment in corruption.

Then, what terrorist targets are we striking? So far, we don’t seem to be effective in striking against terrorist targets. We always seem to experience "near misses." Osama bin Laden is still at large. Al-Jazeera continues to be the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Hamas won a landslide victory where the US spent an enormous amount of money trying to persuade Palestinians of the value of freedom. When we look at the overall picture, we have not been too successful against terror here or abroad… and quite frankly, we don’t have too much to be proud about in terms of our foreign policy.