Lately, I find myself in a bit of a funk. It all started with Patrick Fitzgerald riding in on his white horse and dishing out indictments left and right - at least, that's what everyone thought he would do. But that's not what happened.

There has also been a lot of talk lately about impeaching Bush and the rest of the corrupt gang in Washington. Given the rate at which things are progressing in the US at the moment, however, I suspect that in the not too distant future, I may be concluding my thoughts on the impeachment idea with another "But that's not what happened".

The question I keep turning over in my head is this: is it that not enough Americans can see what is going on in the US of A, or is it that enough Americans see, but aren't doing enough?

It is easy to see how the former could well be true. American society has always been one of ideals and saviors. The reality of the situation never mattered as much as the fact that one was working toward that ideal job or ideal moral plateau. Nowhere is this more evident than in the extreme religion that the Bush gang uses to garner support in its battle against a different "extreme" religion. Indeed, we might notice that "extremism" is the word of the decade. While many Americans seek saviors to preserve their way of life, the Bush gang warns of "dangerous extremists" - you know: "the Devil himself is at work here!" It's the black and white view that is so loved by the psychopaths in power, and it is one that has unfortunately been adopted by the masses. As long as the people believe they have a little slice of heaven, they won't want to rock the boat too much. It's all or nothing. While many citizens are pleasantly distracted by this little game, the government gets away with whatever it wants. Americans are on a "need to know" basis, and the Bush gang has decided America doesn't need to know a thing.

Strangely enough, many people are actually happy with this state of affairs. As a fellow American once told me, "I can't imagine being the president and knowing all about terrorists and stuff. It's so scary to think about. I'm glad someone else is handling it because I'd rather not know." Perhaps the problem in America is that too many people actually believe that ignorance is bliss, and all that is required to be a good citizen in a Democracy is to let the president worry about everything and handle it as he sees fit. The problem with this approach is that America cannot be a true Democracy when the citizenry has no interest in the inner or outer workings of their country. Democracy can exist only when the populace is well informed about everything and active in conveying its views to the government. The people have to want to do the work. If they stop doing this work, sooner or later the Democracy becomes a "democracy", or worse, a Dictatorship.

Of course, one may argue that Americans are standing up and voicing their opinions. After all, just look at the chorus of voices pushing for the impeachment of G.W. Bush. Well, okay, let's look at it. In numerous alternative media circles, impeachment was the talk of the town. The big news stories splashed across their front pages were about those few representatives who stepped forward and seriously raised the idea of impeaching Bush and others. So, that means people are awake, right? That means that there are a bunch of Americans who are stepping up to the plate to push for the return of a more civilised America, right? Well, maybe not. You see, amidst all the talk of impeachment, what has actually happened? Let's see: the Bush administration scored a huge victory with the appointment of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. Oh, and practically the whole world - especially the US and Israel - has its eye on Iran for the same severe lack of logical reasons that the US and its "allies" had their eye on Iraq just a short while ago. If about half of Americans (around 150 million people) were demanding an end to the BS, would Alito have been appointed? If representatives were bombarded with demands that they do something about the Bush gang or they can kiss their cushy jobs goodbye, shouldn't something have happened?

As for Alito, here is some food for thought:

How Hitler Became a Dictator

by Jacob G. Hornberger
Posted June 28, 2004

The judiciary under Hitler

One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena. Shirer points out:

Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent, subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.

In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime (who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted, which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People's Court, which, as Shirer points out,

soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land. It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials, the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, the foreign correspondents were invited to attend. [...]

In addition to the People's Court, which handled treason cases, the Nazis also set up the Special Court, which handled cases of political crimes or "insidious attacks against the government." These courts:

consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof, had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. Thus the lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.

Even lenient treatment by the Special Court was no guarantee for the defendant, however, as Pastor Martin Niemoeller discovered when he was acquitted of major political charges and sentenced to time served for minor charges. Leaving the courtroom, Niemoeller was taken into custody by the Gestapo and taken to a concentration camp.

The Nazis also implemented a legal concept called Schutzhaft or "protective custody" which enabled them to arrest and incarcerate people without charging them with a crime. As Shirer put it,

Protective custody did not protect a man from possible harm, as it did in more civilized countries. It punished him by putting him behind barbed wire. [...]

"Protective custody" - that sounds a lot like extraordinary rendition, doesn't it? In the case of the Bush regime, the process of taking over the judicial branch has not proceeded in the same way that Hitler and the Nazis took over the German court system. Instead, the Bush gang did an even better job: they used the Supreme Court from the beginning to install Bush into office. To ensure that the nation's highest court would always play ball, the gang then simply established a majority of judges who aren't necessarily seen as "conservative", but who are for all intents and purposes aligned with the Bush administration's goals. The masterminds behind the Bush administration have no doubt learned a thing or two from history. Keep in mind also that Hitler took over Germany and established his dictatorship in an entirely legal fashion - or at least in a way that maintained the illusion that he had done so legally. There is another tidbit from the above web site that is also particularly relevant to the topic at hand:

Accepting the new order

Oddly enough, even though his dictatorship very quickly became complete, Hitler returned to the Reichstag every four years to renew the “temporary” delegation of emergency powers that it had given him to deal with the Reichstag-arson crisis. Needless to say, the Reichstag rubber-stamped each of his requests.

For their part, the German people quickly accepted the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn't involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.

Here we see perhaps the most disturbing parallel to modern-day America.

We're not even a stroke of the pen away from fascism in the US, folks. All of the laws the Bush Reich needs are on the books now. If you are unaware of these laws, you can start by reading the actual text of the Patriot Act I and discover how resistance to "Patriot Act II" was overcome by piggybacking parts of it on other laws here and there. To make matters worse, the court system is in now firmly planted in Bush's back pocket. The intelligence agencies do his bidding, even spying on Americans who have never committed a crime. And it's all perfectly legal. The game, you see, is already afoot. That's why we've been screaming at the top of our lungs here on Signs of the Times for years now. In addition to reporting and commenting on all the aforementioned goings-on, we have also commented on how the internet in the US will have to be either locked down or heavily censored at some point. Sure, there is already COINTELPRO-friendly Google, but we suspect that things will get worse, and with good reason:

US plans to 'fight the net' revealed

By Adam Brookes
BBC Pentagon correspondent
Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT

A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.

Bloggers beware.

As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.

From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.

The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.

Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.

The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.

The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.

Propaganda

The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.

All these are engaged in information operations.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.

"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.

The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.

"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.

Credibility problem

Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.

Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.

And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.

But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.

The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.

It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.

It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".

It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.

'Fight the net'

When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.

It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.

"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.

The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.

The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.

"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."

US digital ambition

And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

Consider that for a moment.

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?

The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.

So you see, they've got all the bases covered. They have been covered for quite some time now. Many people assume that because there is some apparent resistance to the Bush administrations actions, and because martial law has not been declared, that the fight against the Neocon gang is working. But - again - think about it: while everyone is pushing for the impeachment of George W. Bush, the guy they are trying to impeach and his cohorts are literally continuing to get away with murder and dismantling every civil liberty we hold dear. Go team! No wonder Bush wasn't nervous when he spewed the same old horse hockey in his latest State of the Union address. We don't even need to apply Donald Rumsfeld's infamous justification for the lack of WMDs in Iraq - absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence - to the current situation. The evidence is there for anyone to read and contemplate. Governments don't pass draconian laws for fun - they pass them because they intend to use them. And, as with Spygate and extraordinary rendition, it is clear that they are being used, whether or not we want to admit it to ourselves.

No, it is not enough to simply send a few e-mails and try to get Bush impeached. It is not enough to simply express our opinion here or there based on an analysis of the facts. Check out how some Americans responded to Bush's speech the other night:

Americans React to Bush Address

By The Associated Press
Wed Feb 1, 1:07 AM ET

NEW ORLEANS - At an Uptown neighborhood bar, both Republicans and Democrats paused to watch with at least one common hope: Rebuilding the Gulf Coast will be a top issue for the federal government.

But neither Tom Short, 75, a Republican and a Korean War veteran, nor attorney Todd Hebert, 38, a Democrat, found much to cheer about in Bush's address.

After Bush mentioned the Gulf Coast in one or two sentences deep into his speech, Short exclaimed, "Did I miss something? I think that's a crying shame."

Hebert was just as dismayed. Throughout the speech, he had been looking at his watch to see how long it would take Bush to mention the wrecked area.

"We are some of the most devastated people in a country right now and we're really feeling left behind. And that speech did nothing to make us not feel left behind."

___

MORAINE, Ohio (AP) - The president's description of the economy as "healthy, and vigorous, and growing" didn't sit well with one auto worker in southwest Ohio, where the financial troubles of General Motors Corp. and parts supplier Delphi Corp. have been keenly felt.

"As an auto worker, no, it's not going OK, because we're losing a lot of jobs," said 49-year-old Dave Shores as Bush's speech competed with classic rock and the crack of pool balls at the Upper Deck Tavern in this Dayton suburb. [...]

Shores is a union member and registered Democrat who has worked for 30 years at Delphi, which filed for bankruptcy last year. He said his plant employed 4,000 people a few years ago, but now has just 1,500.

"Can I blame that on George Bush? No, not all of it," he said, before noting that Bush's policies have made it easier for American companies to move jobs overseas.

"George Bush has helped open those gates to let them go," Shores said.

___

COSTA MESA, Calif. (AP) - Dave Brooks, 61, a retired police officer, watched as an "unhappy Republican."

Brooks, who hosted a speech-watching party at his home, said he was happy to hear proposals about funding for math and science education. But he was concerned that there would be no money.

Brooks, who serves at president of a local school district, said he felt Bush's earlier initiative, No Child Left Behind Act, had struggled for lack of federal funding.

"Does anybody fund these things? We get more mandates with no funding," said Brooks, who has three adult daughters. "The legislation we'll see, the question is how well they will have thought it out." [...]

Another partygoer, 57-year-old high school U.S. history and economics teacher Paul Stroud, was less optimistic.

"We're going to go bankrupt and my students are going to end up in an economy that has the rug pulled out from under them," he said. "I think George Bush Jr. is probably the worst president in the history of this country."

___

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - As a retired accountant and a World War II veteran, Joe Benavidez has two big worries on his mind: the national budget and the war in Iraq.

"The nation is going broke. We get into debt every day with this war," said Benavidez, 84. "Veterans are not going to get what they want or what they need. They're going to cut veteran benefits. They're going to cut welfare, lots of things."

When it came to Bush talking about reducing the deficit by 2009, Benavidez gave a slight chuckle. He said he's heard that promise before by past presidents with no results.

"He wants to cut taxes and do good on the deficit? How do you do that? He'll cut a lot of programs - programs people need. Talk is cheap," he said. [...]

It sounds like Americans are fed up with their president, doesn't it? And it certainly might seem surprising to find such views openly spread by the mainstream media. Heck, the press has a field day every time Cindy Sheehan sneezes. And yet, look at all the Bush regime has accomplished amidst all the "anti-Bush" sentiment! Mainstream US news outlets haven't exactly become objective in recent times. They still promote and defend Bush's lies, yet at the same time we read articles like the one above. It almost seems like the Bush-friendly mainstream news outlets are spreading just enough "Down with Bush!" news in a clever attempt to make the people think that they are actually making a difference. After all, as in Nazi Germany, many Americans don't want to rock the boat. Many Americans want to continue to strive to reach that ideal life, and the Bush masterminds know it. How easy it is for us to send an e-mail, or cheer an extraordinary woman like Cindy Sheehan on the television, content in our idea that the saviors have arrived, and we don't need to really do anything to save America! The problem is that if one person is thinking they can get away with doing only a little work to save themselves, their families, and their friends and neighbors, then that may very well mean that everyone else is thinking the same thing - and that means that not enough people are doing enough to save anything.

Perhaps even those who seem to be awake to what is going on in the US of A aren't really awake yet. They believe we have a chance against the Bush administration and its increasingly fascist and destructive policies, when the truth is that recent events have demonstrated quite clearly that we haven't a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything against such enormous power unless and until each of us decide to live and breath the truth. Wanting it isn't enough. Expecting someone like Cindy Sheehan to save us isn't enough, either. Look at the population of the US, and then think about how many people actually show up at Sheehan's rallies. Talk about pitiful! No, I reckon that George W. Bush - and especially Karl Rove - just love folks like Cindy Sheehan, because they know that such individuals will give people just enough hope that they will believe they don't have to do much to save the country. And while we are all lost in this warm and cozy illusion, the fiery cloven hoof of the Bush gang will trample us all.

It's time to ditch the wishful thinking, that Trojan Horse bestowed upon us by our psychopathic rulers. It's time to ditch our dreams of a better life, a better world, and a better America and start acting to spread the truth in a broad, safe, and completely nonviolent way, thereby creating the potential for a brighter future. No one in their right mind expects to be given a nice job, house, and car for free - so why should we believe that something as precious as our very freedoms will not ever require any real work?

Maybe there really is a huge majority of Americans who are really fed up with Bush and his games. It's hard to believe that this is case, though, because wouldn't all those people be doing more to secure their children's future? Wouldn't they be discovering each other around the water coolers at work and organising to start a real campaign to get rid of Bush? Are we all just deathly afraid of what might happen if we speak up? If that's the case, then we should keep in mind that, under the rule of the current bunch of psychopaths in Washington, doing nothing will most certainly lead not to our most beautiful dream of the future, but to our worst nightmare. The Bush gang is not slowing down. They haven't even flinched. It's now or never.