“Sept. 11 changed everything” has been the mantra of the strong government conservative, the pragmatic dialectoids who are flexible enough to justify any expansion of central government power in the name of the very conservatism that opposes it. Since “we are at war,” Republican media whores have repeatedly claimed that because of an attack that killed the same number of people who die on American roads every 26 days, the following actions are therefore justified:

  1. An undeclared war of indefinite end against an undefined enemy.

  2. Invading two sovereign nations without a congressional declaration of war.

  3. The anti-American Patriot Acts I and II.

  4. The suspension of habeus corpus.

  5. Torture.

These acts have all been justified under the guise of imminent national peril, despite the fact that the peril is so non-perilous that it has not been deemed necessary to expel foreign nationals, let alone enforce the wide-open national borders or existing immigration laws. If federal agents were to begin shooting innocent and unarmed civilians on the street, would that too be justified?

Unfortunately, we already received the answer to that question in Miami last week when federal agents murdered Rigoberto Alpizar, with the post-facto support of the White House.

The frustrating truth is, no matter what happens, Three Monkey Republicans around the country will nod their heads and intone mindlessly: “It was necessary, it was unfortunate, it was an accident.” They will cling to the official story no matter how absurd or overtly biased – if an air marshal heard a bomb threat, then a bomb threat there must have been, even if none of the dozens of other witnesses will corroborate the claim. At this point, it’s not hard to imagine supporters of the administration defending an executive order sending B-2 bombers to carpet-bomb the Cotton Bowl. In this, they echo the Clintonistas in their unthinking and furious defenses of all acts Clintonian.

America was founded on the principle that it is right to sacrifice blood for liberty. It is telling that the Bush defenders make precisely the opposite argument, that it is right to sacrifice liberty in order to avoid the shedding of American blood. In this they are, like the Dear Leader, avowedly anti-American.

That George Bush is in open and repeated violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is no longer debatable. In keeping with his many anti-constitutional actions, he has publicly declared that he has no way of knowing what is, and what is not constitutional.

This attitude, while hardly unique in Washington, should be absolutely anathema to every American of all political stripes. And it appears that Americans are increasingly turning away from the president in rightful disgust. A recent poll here on WorldNetDaily showed that 45 percent of WND readers – who tend to lean strongly Republican – believe that George Bush deserves to be impeached.

I find it interesting to note that a 2003 Elliott Wave report predicted that if George Bush was re-elected, his second term would likely follow the pattern of Richard Nixon’s. Given the recent reports of George Bush’s personal authorization of domestic spying and more revelations yet to come, this seems entirely possible. After all, Richard Nixon merely spied on his political opponents, while George Bush is spying on the American people.

For this and other crimes against the American people and their Constitution, George Bush must resign. Failing that, he should be impeached.

I have little doubt that this column will infuriate many Republicans and conservatives, millions of whom twice voted enthusiastically for George Bush. It is always painful to realize that one has been betrayed, and even more painful to discover that one has been made a willing accomplice in the destruction of that which one cherishes. You can continue to believe that George Bush is a patriotic American, though he is not. You can dismiss me as a liberal, a left-winger or a lunatic, though I am not.

But as you do so, try to keep in mind that railing against the messenger does not make the message any less valid.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.