"Today’s political leaders demonstrate their low opinion of the public with every social law they pass. They believe that, if given the right to chose, the citizenry will probably make the wrong choice. Legislators do not think any more in terms of persuading people; they feel the need to force their agenda on the public at the point of a bayonet and the barrel of a gun." ~ Mark Skousen
Cheney Plays the Shell Game Well
Exclusive to STR
June 6, 2007
From my point of view, Vice President Dick Cheney is not the type of person who cares about integrity, even though he claims to live within its boundaries. I have read several of his latest speeches, one at West Point to the graduates, and one at Wyoming's Boys State. I read quite plainly Mr. Cheney's words, since they were posted upon the White House website for all to peruse, as if he was quite proud of them. While reading them, however, I got quite upset. Not quite upset at Mr. Cheney, although he deserves quite well my loathing. But I was upset at the Corporate Media and the way they continue to allow such treason to continue, treasonous words spoken quite eloquently before the entire world, and no one seems to care about the particular way words are placed together--which makes them so treacherous.
One of his quotes at the Wyoming Boys State was: 'Out here we put a high value on authenticity, on plain-speaking, on civility.' In reading over this transcript, I see he is quite correct that he plainly spoke, however, the concepts he put forward were not exactly American Pie. I wondered if he did it on purpose, then I knew he did it on purpose. In one quote, he stated: 'Last weekend I had the privilege of being the graduation speaker for our military academy at West Point . It was inspiring to hear them take the oath to defend the United States 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic' -- and to realize that these were more than just words for these new graduates.'
Excuse me, sir, but I have taken that oath before. The oath does not state anywhere to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It states quite plainly: 'I, ___(name)___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.' And there is the rub. This is the second speech he has given in recent weeks where he actually misquotes the oath of office on purpose, and states that the oath is to 'defend the United States against all enemies.' While this may seem just a slight divergence in syntax, it is insidious in that the phrase sounds like the proper quote; however its meaning is completely changed. Now, per his version, instead of swearing an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States , we are now swearing to defend the state called the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In other words, we swear to protect the state against the people.
This is too rich. The Constitution was designed to defend people from the tyranny of the state, not the other way around. And of course I understand that the Constitution has long ago been pushed aside like some paper scraps near a writer's desk by the glad-handed current administration, and past administrations. But the point is it remains insidious because it is a lie and it raises the lie to the level of being a truth when it is continually pumped to the microphone by a person believed to be in an authoritative position. The Nazis used that tactic of propaganda to great advantage in 1939. Somebody should stand up and tell the Vice President that he has it wrong, but that would be useless. He doesn't believe he is wrong, he knows what he is doing, and he is doing it quite well. His Neoconservative buddies have all been through this with him before. And this is business as usual. Only it truly amounts to treason.
Another quote goes: 'We have an obligation to be informed, to be involved. We are citizens, not subjects, since we live in a democracy.' Excuse me, sir. We currently live in a Constitutional Republic , which is quite different from a democracy. Should I have to explain this to a man who, within the same speech, claims to be a proponent of American history? I think not. Rather, he knows exactly what he is doing, exactly what he is saying, and where he is taking this country. This is all too often quoted. I am tired of hearing that I live in a democracy, that we are spreading democracy and democratic values. Hello? Last time I read the definition of democracy, it was created from the Greek root words demo, meaning people, the mob, the many ' and kratos, meaning rule. In other words, mob rule. In other words, if 51% of the people disagree with the way you choose to live your life, you can't live that way anymore.
A constitutional republic, on the other hand, protects the individual against mob rule, and places forth the rule of law to protect the minority from the majority.
One might think that a sitting two term vice president, with years of government service under his belt, would recognize and understand the difference. Of all the things I have read about Mr. Cheney, I can't recall ever reading about his being dumb or stupid. Rather, he is quite intelligent, cunning, quick witted, and a great shot. So what he says, he understands. And what he has been saying is not what America was founded upon. What America was founded upon is bruised and beaten down and hiding under the desk in the Oval Office, probably not to see the light of day ever again. The grand experiment seems to be over.