Our unelected president Bush has been in office almost one year now since the Republicans stole the election, and who he is and what he represents must now be apparent to even the most politically ignorant of Americans. Within months of taking office, he and his gang, called the "Administration," have shown exactly where they stand on the most important issues facing Americans and other people of planet Earth.

They have rejected the international accord to establish the first permanent war-crimes tribunal—supported by 138 other nations—on the grounds that it was "flawed". They have abandoned the 1997 Kyoto climate-control treaty that is designed to reduce gases linked to global warming—supported by 175 other nations. After seven years of negotiations, they have abandoned a United Nations accord to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention on the grounds that it would put "national security and confidential business information at risk."

They have intimidated 189 members of a United Nation's Conference on Small Arms to water down plans to curb illegal trafficking in small arms and light weapons on the implausible grounds that it interferes with American's right to bear arms. They jeopardize peaceful relations with other countries by threatening to withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty; an agreement considered by many to be the primary reason for the stability of current international relations. And they move forward with plans to develop a missile defense system which many believe would destabilize international relations, and which many of our leading scientists deplore as useless and wasteful. They withdrew from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and reneged on the U.S. promise to European nations to take action against the flow of illegal money moving around the world. They have delayed implementation of rules that would limit arsenic in drinking water.

They have approved expanded oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area which, until now, has been off limits to oil companies. They have refused to release documents to Congress which would determine how some of these ecologically hazardous decisions weren't, or were, influenced by executives of the giant energy companies with whom the unelected president met just prior to announcement of "his" decisions.

They initiate legislation to fund religions to do social work with public funds, a decision that will blur the distinction between religious and government activities and philosophies; disregarding the Constitution, which demands a clear distinction between the two. These actions are indicative of the bullying behavior of our economic rulers since the end of WWII; behavior that is inexcusable in a group of people claiming to represent the best interests of the country, for they reflect the motives of a group of people, absorbed in self-interest, unresponsive to the fears and needs of the masses of humans living on planet Earth.

They have declared an unreasonable war on "terrorism" and have ordered the U.S. military to callously bomb yet another small, defenseless country—Afghanistan. The attorney general has asked for extraordinary powers that would give the Justice Department the power to spy on and harass private citizens and the Congress has meekly complied. Isn't it enough that the National Security Agency, a secretive organization headquartered in Maryland, is responsible for global snooping? Fenced off with barbed wire and patrolled by armed commandos the restricted area, which is referred to by neighbors as "Crypto City," is the home of 10,000 or more inhabitants whose function is to use the latest technologies to spy upon the world. Do you believe Americans are exempt from their snooping?

Isn't it enough that at the beginning of this year the National Reconnaissance Office had begun a project in conjunction with Boeing Co. to develop a new generation of spy satellites, a project entailing what may be the largest "intelligence-related" contract ever? The new satellites, which will be positioned farther out in space and be more difficult to detect, will be able to pinpoint targets under cloud cover or under darkness of night. Isn't it enough that the spy satellite floating along high above the Earth named "Carnivore" is capable of intercepting millions of telephone, email, voice mail, and radio messages daily?

Why has there been no public show of outrage? Are there so few Americans remaining today who hold the belief that spying upon neighbors is a nasty and immoral activity? Are the masses of working Americans today so indifferent to government snooping, and so ignorant of history that they don't know repressive tactics such as government spying is one of the reasons our ancestors fled the Old World? Are ordinary Americans so ignorant they don't understand individual privacy and freedom from government spying has been one of the cornerstones of American-style democracy? Spying upon an enemy, or assumed enemy, is a consequence of fear. Traditionally, it's what ruling groups have done since time immemorial, always fearful that another group is plotting to remove its power. It's why spying as a function of totalitarian governments is expected.

But should it be expected from one claiming to be a democracy? Totalitarian governments are police states. Haven't you noticed that during the past fifty years the U.S.A. has been assuming the characteristics of a police state? We have proportionately more of our citizens behind bars than any other industrial country and we have spy agencies everywhere.

Despite the noble reasons given for the wholesale imprisonments, and the continued outrageous spying of the American Establishment, can anyone of rational mind not see that since the end of WWII the country has slowly, but surely, been provided with the infrastructure of totalitarianism? Can it not be understood that these actions reflect the philosophies, desires, and objectives of the people who influence, and control, the political machinery of our country? The attorney general's request has aroused a storm of protest from the American Civil Liberties Union, and other groups protective of our constitutional rights.

"If we let the constitution get shredded, the terrorists win," said Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont. "Whatever rights we are willing to give up, we had better be willing to have gone from society for all time. We will not get back what we have given away in haste,"' said Representative Darrell Issa of California. At an evening teach-in at the University of Las Vegas, College of Liberal Arts Dean Jim Frey commented on the rhetorical hypocrisy coming from the media which condemned the terrorists for not distinguishing between military and civilian targets, yet failed to comment on our unelected president's refusal to distinguish between military and civilian targets—between terrorists and those who harbor them.

...Revenge is never a just reason for putting people in harm's way nor sending troops into war...my fear is that Osama bin Laden will become our white whale and that we in a very Melvillian way will lead ourselves into destruction in pursuit of this Moby Dick...

said the Reverend Bart Hutchinson.

The American Establishment's hitmen journalists attack the saner voices among us calling them "e;bleeding-heart liberals, terrorist lovers" and, as expected, "intellectuals." But an intellectual is a person who uses the brain, not brute-force, to define and solve problems. Intellectuals seek civil relationships, not brute-force relationships, as do all bullies. The frightening part of the attorney general's new deceptively named Patriot's Bill is that it's reminiscent of a past long-forgotten. We American's have been here before. In 1919, just after World War I, an attorney general accused "immigrant, communist, union agitators" for a rash of unexplained bombings. When a bomb, destroyed the front of his home, he pointedly asked Congress for money and means to fight this Red Scare.

However, with little regard for due process of law, the Justice Department raided labor union halls in twelve cities, arresting, brutally beating, and deporting hundreds of workers. It was unconstitutional for the Department of Justice didn't possess the legal authority to deport aliens: that was a function of the Department of Labor. Attempting to justify his actions, the attorney general said:

…The Administration of this law is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. However, under existing conditions of our laws, it seemed to be the only means at my disposal of attacking the radical movement...

The radical movement meaning, of course, Americans holding political and economic views contrary to those of American capitalists. The interesting part of this story is that the source of the bombing remained unknown. As did Chicago's Haymarket Square bombing in 1886 remain unknown, but it gave the American Establishment the opportunity to intimidate the growing labor union movement by hanging labor leaders, despite lack of evidence proving their guilt. Nor was the source of the bombing which sank the battleship Maine in 1998 ever determined, but it gave the American Establishment an excuse for declaring war against Spain and forcefully claiming Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines as U.S. possessions. Since the New York City tragedy, the mass media—the Establishment controlled media—has unleashed a barrage of news stories suggesting that the American public must prepare for additional terrorist attacks.

Such preparation, of course, would entail increased government authority in civil affairs—decreasing personal freedom—and diverting public funds from social to military projects. This also shares a frightening similarity to events of the past. When World War I was still a European event, American munitions and armament manufacturers—today called defense companies—were eager to have the United States enter the war.

Americans, however, were indifferent to the battles of European monarchs and didn't want to get involved. These two groups, along with other privileged Americans who understood that war presents opportunities for great profit, were determined to change this attitude. If they couldn't convince American commoners to go to war, they tried to shame citizens to prepare for defense.

Under the banner of "Preparedness," and using its full force, the Establishment propaganda machine pushed, pulled, and twisted human emotions, turning every human fear into a weapon against the American people. The president appealed directly to the people, asking citizens to enlist in the army; not to go to war, but merely to "prepare" for the nation's safety. Americans ignored the plea. The president asked Congress to pass sedition laws giving him the power to punish his critics. The request was denied. President Wilson, however, eventually took the republic to war.

After the war, a congressional investigation confirmed that the National Security League, and its munitions and armament sponsors had not only promoted U.S. entry to the European war, but had used their cumulative economic and political powers to prolong it.

Today, we have the Afghanistan War on Terrorism and the unproven—therefore, still unknown—full story of the New York City episode. We do know that Muslim hands executed the plan. But do we know that they acted without assistance from American sources? Their plan was complex and sophisticated. The hijacked planes traveled air corridors in which military planes were scheduled, but miraculously avoided. Are simple peasants and warlords capable of knowing American military schedules without inside information? It seems that they did. How come?

Nor do we know which individual or group was responsible for the anthrax episodes that helped to continue the spread of fear among the U.S. population. We do know the chemical was developed and stored in a military research facility, for the military has admitted "unauthorized" anthrax experiments in the facility and that their bacterial samples for anthrax—and ebola—are missing. But are we really expected to believe these tales told by habitual liars? Liars who denied involvement with poisonous chemicals until thousands of sheep died near the military laboratory in Dugway, Utah exposing the lie. Liars who had little qualms using the abominable Agent Orange against innocent civilians in the American instigated Vietnam War, and who in all probability used experimental poisons on our troops in the Desert Storm fiasco.

The American Establishment would like the American people to forget about the presidential election of 2000. But their expectations are unrealistic. Why should we forget the glimpses of political dishonesty that peeked through the curtain of smoke and mirrors placed before our eyes by the Establishment media? Why should we forget that our unelected president is the standard bearer for men who have historically resisted working America's claim for a fairer share of their labor?

Why should we forget that it was neither the people nor the Electoral College, but the Supreme Court of the United States—who did not have the constitutional power—that made this man president of our republic? Why should we forget that this wasn't a matter of judicious contemplation, but of five people who supported the Republican philosophy voting against four who believed in the principles of freedom and true democracy? Why should Americans forget that election supervisors in heavily Republican Martin and Leon Counties, Florida, allowed Republican party workers to take "flawed and rejected" absentee ballots back to party headquarters where they were—oops—"corrected" and resubmitted?

Why should we forget that more African-Americans than ever turned up at the voting booths and that an estimated 90-percent of them voted for the Democratic presidential candidate? Why should we forget that a private firm, hired prior to the election by Florida's Republican secretary of state to "cleanse" voter rolls, did so by purging 8,000 names from the rolls, none of who had committed a felony, and most of whom were Afro-Americans? Why should we forget that most of the reported election irregularities were reported in these African-American precincts?

Why should we forget that Duval County, Florida is being sued by Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow/Push coalition for its huge undercount, second only to Miami-Dade county's 9,000 under-vote? Or that black voters were turned away from polls in Duval county at police check points for not having an ID card or photo ID? Why should we forget that in some of Chicago's black precincts one of every six ballots in the presidential election were uncounted, a much higher rate than in more affluent, white Chicago precincts?

Why should Americans forget that the Republican party sent a team of well-organized, loudmouthed, rude demonstrators into Miami to mock Democratic candidates and protest a recount, prompting two of the candidates to call upon the FBI for an investigation into "a shocking case of undermining the right to vote through intimidation and violence?" Why should we ignore the similarity of these tactics to those used by Nazi brown shirts during Adolph Hitler's ascendancy to power?

Why should we forget that the United States is still a land of racial bigots?