Research reveals a certain method employed by bluebloods throughout history to consolidate power. A crisis is created by government action or inaction. This crisis leads to tremendous violence and social upheaval that in turn has the population screaming for a solution. The government then plays the role of savior, presenting an oppressive remedy to the problem. Society gets onto a totalitarian trajectory as the process is repeated over and over again. It worked for the Illuminist-bred Jacobins in France. It worked for the communists in Russia. It worked for Nazis in Germany. Today, it is working for the Neocons and other elitists hidden behind the Bush Administration.
In "Katrina and the Politics of Disaster," evidence was explored that seemed to suggest that warnings were ignored and assistance was intentionally delayed, causing the Katrina situation to intensify. An atmosphere of lawlessness and anarchy arose, causing people to call for Federal intervention. We now find ourselves in the midst of phase three as the government presents the cure for our ills. Apparently, that cure is a shot of totalitarianism that involves a very long needle. On September 13th, Stewart Powell reported:
President Bush on Monday urged Congress to examine whether the White House needs stronger powers to deal with catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina. Bush's backing for the congressional inquiry raised the possibility that lawmakers might expand presidential authority to:
- Order mandatory civilian evacuations
- Dispatch U.S.-based armed forces for emergency search-and-rescue operations
- Grant wider leeway for active-duty U.S. military personnel to carry out law enforcement operations. (No pagination)
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the government solution is the call for the military to be used here at home. A September 17th Associated Press article went into this feature of the President's plan:
President Bush's push to give the military a bigger role in responding to major disasters like Hurricane Katrina could lead to a loosening of legal limits on the use of federal troops on U.S. soil.
Pentagon officials are reviewing that possibility, and some in Congress agree it needs to be considered.
Bush did not define the wider role he envisions for the military. But in his speech to the nation from New Orleans on Thursday, he alluded to the unmatched ability of federal troops to provide supplies, equipment, communications, transportation and other assets the military lumps under the label of "logistics."
The president called the military "the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." (No pagination)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has now entered the picture, ready to step up domestic militarization. The changes he will suggest to the President may allow the government to use natural disasters as a pretext for tearing down longtime bulwark to tyranny: the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The Associated Press reported:
[Spokesman Lawrence] Di Rita said Rumsfeld has not made recommendations to Bush, but among the issues he is examining is the viability of the Posse Comitatus Act. Di Rita called it one of the "very archaic laws" from a different era in U.S. history that limits the Pentagon's flexibility in responding to 21st century domestic crises. (No pagination)
Katrina has been used to make the unthinkable now thinkable. The notion that the military should be used to police civilians would make the Founding Fathers' skin crawl. Today, many Americans still share that sentiment with the architects of the Republic. However, most sit on their hands believing the system of checks and balances will remedy the problem. The branch most likely to step in on our behalf should bad legislation get passed is the Judicial. Using the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court can look at something the President or Congress does and declare it unconstitutional. However, the Administration intends to short-circuit any judicial attempts to block its acquisition of power with what can only be described as a Supreme Court coup. Integral to this coup is chief justice nominee John G. Roberts.
Roberts has been a Bush political operative since at least the controversial 2000 presidential election. In an article for the Miami Herald, Gary Fineout and Mary Ellen Klas elaborate:
U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.
Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald. (No pagination)
The article continued:
Roberts, himself a noted constitutional lawyer, and an unnamed law professor spent between 30 and 40 minutes talking to Bush in the governor's conference room, sources told The Herald.
Roberts' perceived partisanship during the recount has been enough for some Democrats to suggest that his nomination should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.
A spokesman for the governor confirmed Wednesday that Bush met with Roberts during the recount.
Roberts was "one of several experts who came to Florida to share their ideas," said spokesman Jacob DiPietre. Roberts came "at his own expense and met with Gov. Bush to share what he believed the governor's responsibilities were under federal law after a presidential election and a presidential election under dispute." (No pagination)
For some, Robert's connection to the 2000 election make his nomination to the Supreme Court very problematic. U.S. representative Robert Wexler summed up critics' misgivings:
U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Boca Raton Democrat, seized on Roberts' participation in the 2000 recount and suggested it should be grounds for rejecting his nomination. Wexler suggested the nomination "threw salt on the wounds of the thousands of Floridians whose voting rights were disenfranchised during the 2000 election.
"Judge Roberts worked to ensure that George Bush would become president -- regardless of what the courts might decide," Wexler said, relying on news accounts that suggested Roberts gave the governor advice on how the state Legislature could name Bush the winner. "And now he is being rewarded for that partisan service by being appointed to the nation's highest court." (Fineout and Klas, No pagination)
Roberts was no doubt rewarded for his services with a nomination to the Supreme Court. When Rehnquist passed away, nomination was upgraded to that of chief justice. Roberts has jumped the first hurdle, the Senate Judiciary Committee. All that is left is to be confirmed by the general senate. With a republican majority, victory is almost a forgone conclusion. This makes the Roberts situation even more disturbing. Why? Unfortunately, the standard for being a great chief justice is not making upright and moral decisions. Instead, the standard is the ability to bring uniformity to the Court. Eisenhower considered his decision to nominate Warren one of his greatest mistakes. Given the man's involvement in the cover-up of the Kennedy assassination, Eisenhower's regret seems justified. That notwithstanding, the man is still considered one of this nation's great chief justices for his ability to get all the justices on the same page. As a result of all this, chief justices have learned to be great politicians and work to bring uniformity to the Court, not to bring about a moral outcome. Therefore, chief justice Roberts would work to bring the Court into lock step with the Bush Administration's agenda.
However, to call Roberts merely a Bush lackey would be inaccurate. It must be understood that this Administration (like so many administrations before it) is a front for some elite faction. In a speech given by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh, the puppeteers behind the Bush Administration were revealed: "One of the ways -- one of the things that you could say is, the amazing thing is we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government" (No pagination). Those on the left have misidentified this neocon cult as anti-communist right-wingers. These poor, misguided souls have failed to recognize the difference between being anti-communist and anti-Soviet. The cult of neoconservatism is, in fact, a revival of Trotskyism. Former neocon Michael Lind revealed this fact in his article "A Tragedy of Errors":
The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists. The idea that the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois "new class" was developed by thinkers in the Trotskyist tradition like James Burnham and Max Schachtman, who influenced an older generation of neocons. The concept of the "global democratic revolution" has its origins in the Trotskyist Fourth International's vision of permanent revolution. The economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism, promoted by neocons like Michael Novak, is simply Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history. (No pagination)
None other than the godfather of neoconservatism himself, Irving Kristol, vindicates Lind's allegations. In his book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Kristol writes: "I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyist and I have not a single bitter memory" (13). Left-wing activists love to charge the neocons with being fascistic anti-communists. Nevertheless, the neocons' crusade to tear down the Soviet Union and Soviet-connected regimes stemmed from the fact that they felt betrayed by Uncle Joe. Stalin had made the mistake of attacking their idol: Trotsky.
With the neocons in control, America is sure to continue on a socialist and statist trajectory. Future catastrophes, both man-made and natural, will provide the pretext for all of this. A Supreme Court with Roberts as its chief justice will declare the Administrations' actions completely legal and constitutional. All the while, the very document that is supposed to be guiding the Court's decisions, the Constitution, will be burning.
- Associated Press. " Historic changes possible in military's role in domestic emergencies." USA Today 17 September 2005.
- Fineout, Gary and Mary Ellen Klas. "Roberts Gave GOP Advice in 2000 Recount." Miami Herald 21 July 2005.
- Hersh, Seymour. "Seymour Hersh: We've Been Taken Over by a Cult." Democracy Now! 26 January 2005
- Kristol, Irving. Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
- Lind, Michael. "A Tragedy of Errors." The Nation 5 February 2004.
- Powell, Stewart M. "Bush says he may need more power in disasters." The State 13 September 2005.
Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he completed his Associate of Arts and Science degree. He is working to complete his Bachelor's degree, with a major in Communications and a minor in Political Science. Paul has authored another book entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11.
CLICK FOR PDF FILE