Bush For King

Fresh from their hand-wringing betrayal of the executive branch, the New York Times exposes the inner workings of Bush’s cabinet in a further attempt to confuse the American subjects.

The unusual meeting was prompted because Mr. Ashcroft’s top deputy, James B. Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it.

With Mr. Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Mr. Ashcroft - who had been in the intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital with pancreatitis and was housed under unusually tight security - because “they needed him for certification,” according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

The article seems to suggest that Bush needed said approval.

In fact, it seems likely that Ashcroft’s resignation was simply cover for his firing. The article does not specify whether Ashcroft “signed off” on the program. It seems likely he did not, and that George I removed him from his cabinet for his rebellion.

So thank you, New York Times, for worrying the citizenry with the appearance of dissent in the ranks. Keep it up, traitors.

The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through. - Alexis de Tocqueville

Born 200 years ago this year (it’s still 2005 as I write this), de Tocqueville was certainly prescient. The security of our nation now depends on an overclass, one which is free to do what must be done to protect the ungrateful underclass.

The Constitution’s idea of “checks and balances” has led to an unacceptable restriction on the power of the Chief Executive and a dangerous sense of entitlement among the citizenry. This sense of entitlement - to speech, to privacy, to influence over government policy - has led some to suggest that a leader who “lets his people down” on these points ought to be censured or removed from power.

Foolishness. As John Hinderaker so wisely counsels, the legislative and, especially, judicial branches - or “lower branches” - of government are in place simply as advisors to the executive, or “highest”, branch.

But unfortunately, due to - it must be admitted - poor planning by the Founding Fathers, the Constitution is written in such a way as to imply that the Chief Executive’s power is somehow limited by the lower branches. We have reached a point in American society so low that even something as simple as listening into the communications of a large swath of the citizenry without a court order is seen by some as some sort of transgression on the part of our leader.

It is to laugh.

In 2004 John Kerry was determined to use any means necessary to overthrow the leader of the United States. In 2008 another attempt is scheduled. In fact, some are suggesting that an obscure, high-numbered amendment - a post facto change, no less - indicates that our leader must abdicate willingly! Outrage.

It is time, now, 2006, to begin discussion on how best to change the Constitution to be more as God and the Founding Fathers intended.

It is time, now, for a king.

Bush for King! Long Live George I!