On the other hand, we the people just might take back our government, for, as Edward R. Murrow observed in March, 1954, "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men ... We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result."
As the founders of our republic proclaimed in their Declaration of Independence, "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." If the Congress refuses to act in behalf of the people and to honor the oath of each member to defend the Constitution of the United States by impeaching and removing this criminal regime, then it is time at last for the people to withdraw their consent from the Congress and recognize it for what it is: bought and paid for vassals of the corporate oligarchs.
Armed rebellion is not the answer: it is both immoral and impractical. The Busheviks and the Congress have effectively abolished Posse Comitatus, which means the that military can now turn its weapons on the citizens. And if the military refuses, the private armies, Blackwater, etc., are locked and loaded.
Far better that the public follow the lead of Gandhi, Mandela, Sakharov and King: non-violent resistance. They have indicated the way with their words and deeds.
But I must say no more about this, for, according to the new "enabling acts" of this Congress and this administration, to do so would be a "crime."
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm .
I have never seen the situation laid out so clearly as you have done. It is quite an achievement and shows a clarity of mind that it needed and exceptional in this time of American troubles. Others in other countries might well learn from Bushism, it certainly seems so in Britain, God help us.
Its a bit lame in words but 'well done'.
by
ibrahim turner (25 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 179 comments)
on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 6:49:55 PM
I can't get to your crisis papers through that link. Perhaps you'd like to tell us who in your opinion did blow up those three buildings at the World Trade Center on 9/11, 2007. I personally can't think of anyone else with the means and the opportunity.
Robert Hoogenboom Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 183 comments)
on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 2:38:46 AM
Short answer to your question: No one blew up the three WTC buildings. The towers fell due to structural failure that resuted from the impact of the airliners.
WTC building #7 is not clear. Probably fell due to the load of debris from the towers and the seismic shock of their collapse.
Yes, I fully expect that you do not believe this, and I am fully aware that there is a lively "9/11 Truth" movement which insists that the Busheviks planned and executed the attacks on the WPC and the Pentagon.
For a much lengthier account of my reasons to doubt that anyone "blew up" the WTC buildings, follow the link above.
By the way, that article prompted more than 500 replies, the most by far of anything I have published on the internet.
And I expect soon to be writing still more about it.
Ernest Partridge
by
Ernest Partridge (103 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 5:05:47 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
