The Inaugural Attacks (01/20/2001)
- Thread starter Sabot Cat
- Start date
Sabot Cat
Banned
TALIBAN “NOT INVINCIBLE”; AFGHANISTAN REQUESTS UN AID
From: CNN
Published: February 15th 2001
Ahmad Shah Massoud, the de facto leader of the anti-Taliban United Front in Afghanistan, has met with NATO Secretary General George Robertson, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City to request foreign military aid and humanitarian assistance.
“The Taliban and al-Qaeda have introduced a very wrong perception of Islam to the world. We must realize that they are not representative, and further, that they are not invincible,” Massaoud said, “they are weaker than in the past, because they are so distant from the people. It is only the assistance provided by extremists like Osama bin Laden that keep the Taliban on their feet.”
Sources suggest that tens of millions of dollars in military equipment and other resources have already been received by Massaoud's United Front from the United States and its allies since the Inaugural Attacks.
[...]
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1341
Published: February 16th 2001
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4282nd meeting, on 16 February 2001
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 1276 (1999) of 15 October 1999, 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000, and 1336 (2001) of 21 January 2001,
Condemning the Taliban for facilitating the use of Afghanistan as a base for the export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with them,
Determining the Taliban is a threat to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,
Determining that the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to the demands in resolution 1336 (2001) constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Authorizes, to support the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in exercising its inherent right of self-defence in accordance with the Charter, the immediate establishment of a United Nations Interim Force in Afghanistan under its authority;
2. Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment, and other resources to the United Nations Interim Force in Afghanistan;
3. Calls on all Afghan forces to ensure the safety of the United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations, and to adhere strictly to international humanitarian law;
4. Encourages Member States to support long-term assistance to the social and economic reconstruction of Afghanistan;
5. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
D.C. CIRCUIT CHOOSES OUR PRESIDENT: IT'S NOT DOLE OR DELEON
Published: February 19th 2001
In one of the most controversial contemporary court decisions since Bush v. Gore, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled 5-4 that Congressional officials such as Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) cannot be elevated to the presidency. However, before deLeon's legal team could celebrate their evident victory, the court announced that the true Acting President should, in fact, be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The entire court agreed that the “Succession Shuffle Clause” was inoperable because, in the words of Chief Judge Harry Edwards, “Congressmen cannot make a law that allows one of their own to be the President without an amendment, because they are not what the Succession Clause refers to as 'Officers', which is a term consistently used by the constitution in reference to those who are appointed by the President”, with “strong supporting evidence” in James Madison's notes and drafts. And although the nine judges also agreed that deLeon was not Acting President, they were not unanimous in deciding who was.
Writing for the majority opinion, Circuit Judges Stephen F. Williams, joined by Douglas Ginsburg, David Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph and Karen L. Henderson, wrote that, “upon the successful confirmation vote of Donald Rumsfeld in the Senate, the plaintiff [deLeon] was no longer acting Secretary of Defense or Acting President.” Further, “the status of Acting President was not conferred upon the plaintiff himself, but the Secretary of Defense as an office”, and thus 'bumping' deLeon out for Rumsfeld would be “constitutionally permissible” despite the much-quoted Article II, Section 1, Clause 6.
Chief Judge Edwards, joined by Circuit Judges Merrick Garland and David Tatel, wrote in their dissent that the Acting President is Secretary of State Colin Powell, because “after the plaintiff ceased to be the Secretary of Defense, the office of president was again vacant,” and thus, “the line of succession began anew with the Secretary of State.” Circuit Judge Judith Rogers alone opined that the D.C. Circuit shouldn't have heard the case because this would have been a“political question best left to Congress when it reassembles”.
History will show us if she's right.
POWELL CONTINUES TO CALL FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, DISMISSED AS SECRETARY OF STATE
From: The Washington Post
Published: February 23rd 2001
Colin Powell has been dismissed as Secretary of State by Acting President Donald Rumsfeld on the heels of an interview with Face the Nation (CBS).
“The United States needs to have an elected President,” said former Secretary Powell, “who can command our forces with the full faith of the American people in his authority.”
More controversially, Powell criticized Rumsfeld's purported foreign policy proposals, “every meeting its always been 'get Hussein, get Hussein, get Hussein'. And what I want to know is how Saddam Hussein and Iraq are related to our mission in Afghanistan.”
“It's incredibly inappropriate for Powell to go to the media with his concerns during what happens in our private meetings” said President Rumsfeld, “and I believe that such intrusions upon our planning will jeopardize our ability to respond to threats to our national security.”
Frank Carlucci, the 16th Secretary of Defense and 15th National Security Advisor for the Reagan administration, was appointed and confirmed as the new Secretary of State. Carlucci had been friends with Rumsfeld in Princeton University, and was most recently involved in a lawsuit against the 2000 HBO film Lumumba, which depicted him as a conspirator in the assassination of the Congo's first prime minster.
RUMSFELD APPOINTS MOST DIVERSE SUPREME COURT EVER, SENATE FILIBUSTERS LAST NOMINEE
From: The Washington Times
Published: March 9th 2001
Liberals have been raising hell ever since Donald Rumsfeld was confirmed as acting President by the D.C. Circuit. They've said, in their trademark apocalyptic manner, that he would appoint a nine member Supreme Court with Senatorial support that was all white, all male, all Republican and with little to no credentials. That he would open internment camps for Arabs in the United States, and put people in jail without trial for trumped up terrorism charges, or that he would put CIA cameras in every home (no doubt with air support from black helicopters and UFOs), and so on. But President Rumsfeld has rose above all of these expectations, and appointed the most diverse Supreme Court in the history of the United States with the appropriate qualifications as well as a range of ideological backgrounds.
This is perhaps best exemplified by the new Chief Justice of the United States, Janice Rogers Brown. Chief Justice Brown is an African-American woman who served as an Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of California since 1996, with a public legal career stretching back to 1977. She upheld the state of California's ban on semi-automatic rifles despite her opinion on the matter, in a clear example of judicial impartiality.
She is one of four women- count 'em, four women- on the Supreme Court. The others are Associate Justices Alice M. Batchelder, Edith Jones, and Deanell Tacha, who all served as judges on the various United States Courts of Appeals (Sixth, Fifth and Tenth Circuits respectively). They were received unanimously along with Associate Justices John Cornyn, (49th Attorney General of Texas and Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court) and J. Michael Luttig (Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit).
There were also two firsts for the court: the first Latino-American and the first Asian-American court justices. The former, Associate Justice Emilio M. Garza, was a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit who is reportedly happy to continue working with his longtime colleague Edith Jones on the Supreme Court. The latter is Associate Justice Viet D. Dinh, a Harvard alumni, Co-Director of the Joint Program in Law and Business Administration at Georgetown University Law Center, and a member of the Supreme Court bar. He was born in Saigon when it was still known as South Vietnam in 1968, making him one of the youngest justices to be appointed and the first one to be foreign born since the tenure of Justice Felix Frankfurter (1939-1962).
The last confirmation vote was for Alberto Gonzales, who would be the second Latino-American to be a Supreme Court justice, and previously served as an Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and the 100th Secretary State of Texas. A small group of Senate Republicans began a filibuster against the nomination, as National Review magazine, Focus on the Family, and other bulwarks of conservatism made their case to the public, alleging that a vote he cast in a single case in the Texas Supreme Court was enough to make him 'pro-choice'.
President Rumsfeld addressed them in a press conference today, saying, “I call upon all of my friends in the Senate to realize that we are just trying to reassemble our national government, and that we must have a broad range of opinions on the Supreme Court to service us, including those we might disagree with.”
A real partisan shill, that Rumsfeld.
Last edited:
Sabot Cat
Banned
Thank you so much! I've really enjoyed your work, and I'm honored that you like this one~
Last edited:
Sabot Cat
Banned
Thanks for the constructive criticism as well~ However, it was actually shortly after the inauguration ceremony that they were confirmed in OTL:
The Los Angeles Times (01/21/01): "Acting just a few hours after George W. Bush was sworn in as president Saturday, the Senate gave swift assent to an unexpectedly large bloc of his Cabinet nominees, including the first black secretary of State.
[...] Seven nominees were confirmed, four more than had been expected only the day before. They included three key members of the nascent Bush administration: Colin L. Powell as secretary of State, Donald H. Rumsfeld as secretary of Defense and Paul H. O'Neill as secretary of the Treasury."
Sabot Cat
Banned
It's all good! I had thought this too, and there isn't a lot of attention drawn when exactly they're confirmed, but I was corrected by black angel on this point.
Last edited:
So if IOTL both Rumsfeld and Powell were sworn in on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2001, doesn't any subsequent confirmation still make Powell POTUS, since he was supposed to be SecState IOTL? Or am I reading it wrong?
Marc A
Cabinet nominees are always confirmed after the inauguration because technically the President can't nominate the until he's President.
Sabot Cat
Banned
Thank you so much, and I hope I don't disappoint!
So if IOTL both Rumsfeld and Powell were sworn in on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2001, doesn't any subsequent confirmation still make Powell POTUS, since he was supposed to be SecState IOTL? Or am I reading it wrong?
Marc A
That's kind of what the dissenting opinion of the D.C. Circuit maintained, although it's a pretty partisan decision (all of the dissenters were appointed by Carter and Clinton, those who consented to the majority opinion were a motley crew of Reagan and Bush appointees; behind closed doors, two of them were backing Dole, but they wanted to push for a majority opinion.)
However, there is no 'bumping' between cabinet successors written in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 itself, and the confirmation of the SecState would not deprecate the SecDef from being Acting President in this scenario; nonetheless, the Acting SecDef can be displaced from their position as SecDef by the in-coming nominee, and in the D.C. Circuit's opinion, thus assumes the powers of the President.
Indeed, and it's also why Powell, Rumsfeld and co. were not front and center stage at the Presidential inauguration to begin with.
Last edited:
HA HA HA. Come on, now.
If anything, there'd be more conspiracies. ("Planes don't explode like that" rofl smh) 9/11 was arguably the "perfect" terrorist attack due to the 2nd plane impacting on live TV, with every news camera already watching from every angle. This would be different. A found footage horror flick with a split second of reaction from the crowd and a glimpse of horror on Bush's face before the video cuts out. Yikes.
tbh, my only complaint is that this timeline makes the Twin Towers seem like an afterthought. Seriously, who cares about some office buildings when the Federal Government has just been decapitated?! In terms of shock to the national psyche, an attack like this would be so SO much worse than 9/11. Christ, I don't even wanna know what the backlash would look like. Internment Camps? "Muslim-Only" airport terminals? Lynchings? NSA agents stopping you on the street and asking for papers?
This is going to go very badly, very fast.
The US has essentially became very close to a 1-party state now at the highest levels of government. With Republican supermajorities in the judiciary and legislatures, there's essentially nothing that can't be pushed through. Moreover, the party in power will almost certainly see this as a good rather than bad thing, and utilize that power to keep their supermajority. The honeymoon and unity is only going to last until the overreaching starts.
The US has essentially became very close to a 1-party state now at the highest levels of government. With Republican supermajorities in the judiciary and legislatures, there's essentially nothing that can't be pushed through. Moreover, the party in power will almost certainly see this as a good rather than bad thing, and utilize that power to keep their supermajority. The honeymoon and unity is only going to last until the overreaching starts.
If every Senate-confirmed person in the SecDef line of succession was automatically in the presidential line of succession, most of the cabinet positions would be meaningless for the succession. Even if the law is written that way, I doubt that was the intent. If the attack happened a couple hours earlier, Cuomo would be president and the people around him would hand him the nuclear football or whatever.
But in this scenario, there's literally no one else, so it goes to deLeon as a Senate-confirmed acting Secretary of Defense.
Sabot Cat
Banned
Subscribed.
In a way, like Able Archer 84, it is a scenario I have heard about, seen discussed, but not actually executed.
Thumbs up.
Thanks for the positive feedback!
And yeah, I've seen this scenario poked at but not really fleshed out, so here we are~Well, I think you might have some cameras that would turn to the direction of the sound of the on-coming plane before it hits, but yeah. The various political conspiracies kicked up by this are going to be covered soon; I'll just say for now that they're more mainstream than OTL.
I'm saving this for a comprehensive report which will take a look at the state-level legislation and violence that has taken place since the Inaugural Attacks. ^^"
Well no else holding a position higher in the list succession of SecDef, at least~
Indeed... the Washington Times tried to paint the new Court justices as ideologically diverse, but they aren't. Well, diverse in their shades of conservatism, I suppose.
Last edited:
Orville_third
Banned
And it looks like we may be going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and perhaps other places too...
What are the plans for emergency preparedness in the US ITTL? Is there a greater push for a DHS?
What are the plans for emergency preparedness in the US ITTL? Is there a greater push for a DHS?
Sabot Cat
Banned
There is actually very little push for DHS, as Rumsfeld hopes to increase the budget of the DoD when Congress puts back together, and feels that the creation of a new agency specifically dedicated to domestic security could prevent him from pursuing some of his favorite projects under the broader mandate of 'defense'.
Sabot Cat
Banned
THE PRENATAL CITIZENSHIP ACT SIGNED INTO LAW IN NORTH DAKOTA
From: The Washington Times
Published: March 14th 2001
North Dakota Governor John Hoeven has signed into law the Prenatal Citizenship Act after its passage in the state legislature, following the announcement of the conservative Supreme Court appointees. The most controversial provisions of the bill extend citizenship to fetuses at conception, with exceptions for rape or incest, and if birth would threaten the life of the mother. Numerous protesters have already announced that they will not abide by the law and appeal its legality for what is likely to be round two of Roe v. Wade.
“This assault on abortion rights will not be tolerated,” stated Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women, “because civil rights and human rights are the foundation of our democracy, and NOW is determined to maintain them for all women.”
“This will not prevent abortions if that's the aim of this new legislation,” said Silvia Henriquez of the National Abortion Federation, “it will only increase illegal, unsafe abortions for women who have no where to go.”
Governor John Hoeven was skeptical of these arguments, “abortion abridges the rights of our youngest citizens, who deserve to be protected by our laws just as much as their mothers. Furthermore, I have little sympathy for those who attempt to defy the statutes of this state."
Shirley Dobson, chair of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, said that “Kansas has taken the first steps towards a healed nation, a nation that respects the faith of its people more, as well as the sanctity of life no matter how young and helpless.”
HOW THE U.N. FUMBLED BIN LADEN'S CAPTURE, ALLOWED IRAN TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN
From: The New York Post
Published: March 16th 2001
The feel-good liberal solution to regime change, the United Nations Interim Forces in Afghanistan, had evidently fumbled in their attempt at capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, as he released a new tape taunting the United States and its allies today. An inside informant has gone on the record to say how the Blue Helmets failed to nab him.
He tells us that in the opening of the intervention on February, the CIA did all of the heavy-lifting for the UNIFIA in the intelligence department, intercepting communications and pinpointing bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountain range. In our cross-hairs was the architect of the worst attack on the United States in all of history, an event that claimed over 4000 lives in one horrible day.
So at first, the United States proposed dropping GATOR mines, like it had used to great effect in the Persian Gulf War, to trap bin Laden and his forces in the area. But the largely European commanders of UNIFIA refused. Pressing on, when we were within 1500 meters of bin Laden, and the scant few Americans on the ground wanted to hone in, the native Afghan troops weren't on board with following through because they were afraid of the potentially superior al-Qaeda forces. So they fell back.
And so on.
Meanwhile, the key Afghan provincial city of Herat was flooded with Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as their air force bombed key Taliban targets like communication facilities and tanks. Their presence was met with fanfare from the Shia Muslims in the area, including regional warlord Ismail Khan, whose “voice called for revolution” in the words of a military commander in the area. Ismail Khan then granted amnesty for Taliban soldiers on the condition that they don't disrupt the new order of things, which they have heeded for now.
UNIFIA looked at this and basically said 'good job', but what I see is a Iranian eastern buffer and protectorate, with a consequent change in the locus of power in the Middle East. This even seems to contradict their mandate to protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan, as well as its mandate to protect its people. Ismail Khan has long been accused of ruling the region like a personal dictatorship, complete with the human rights abuses. Does he or will he submit to the authority of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, to the United Nations? Are they willing to press the issue?
What's clear here then, is that the United Nations cannot win a war or conduct one. The United States has shown, in the aforementioned Persian Gulf War, that it can.
The U.N. will only continue to let the situation in Afghanistan deteriorate, as other nations think it's open season to set up the pieces for their next war. I shudder to think what terrorist thugs will replace the Taliban in Iranian Herat, and when the next Inaugural Attacks could happen. The United States should act swiftly to insure that it doesn't.
POST-INAUGURAL VIOLENCE AGAINST MUSLIM AMERICANS
From: The Chicago Tribune
Published: March 19th 2001
I've never felt as helpless as I did when watching the Inaugural Attacks on the television. I shouted at the equally helpless victims, failing to realize the futility of it all. We've all been feeling that sense of a world seized from our hands, taking it upon ourselves to wage what President Rumsfeld has been calling the “War Against Violent Extremists”. It's worth asking, however, if our long-cherished liberties aren't being trampled by an angry mob seeking retribution.
A disclaimer first, before my more patriotic readers accuse me of unfairness: Neither President Rumsfeld nor President deLeon have been especially zealous in their counter-terrorism policies, and that's not really surprising. Neither had a firm grasp on the presidency, and many of their partisan peers see them as outsiders, gleefully awaiting a chance for them to slip up so they can have the spotlight. Rumsfeld in particular has several issues with his charisma that he'll need to improve upon if he wants to keep his power. The public, too, has been rife with conspiracies that the Republican Party had arranged the Inaugural Massacres to get into power or enforce upon the United States a totalitarian state, likely compelling Rumsfeld to moderate the tone of his policies. Through executive action he hasn't mandated much more than for the Treasury to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists, as well as beefing border patrol, and ordering the creation of the FBI's No Transport List and the Terrorist Screening Center.
Nonetheless a national class action lawsuit, to be prosecuted by the ACLU, has been filed centered around at least twenty-six confirmed instances of plain clothes police officers entering mosques and placing surveillance equipment, often with warrants obtained for dubious allegations of suspected terrorist activities. This happened throughout Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin, in addition to hundreds more claims of this happening in homes as well.
There's also been an uptick of legally sanctioned anti-Muslim violence. On January 23rd, Amjad Sharif, a Sociology professor at Indiana University, was walking to his car when two police officers tackled him to the ground, beat him (leaving visible welts), and detained him overnight without any evident wrongdoing. The law enforcement officials have been absolved of any criminal negligence in the Indiana court system.
This is nothing when compared to the infamous “terrorist defense” given in one recent Missouri court case. On February 2nd, Kyle Stevenson, an unemployed 23 year old St. Louis resident, shot a Sikh man named Hardeep Singh in broad daylight while at a Burger King. Stevenson claimed that he saw Singh reach for a 'detonator', and in his own words, “he was going to blow us all up and I thought, 'Jesus Christ, I need to stop him!'”. Stevenson was acquitted of murder in the second degree and faced no prosecution thereafter.
Was Stevenson really acting under the belief that Singh was a terrorist? Perhaps. But that does not change the fact an innocent man had to be sacrificed in service of that belief, that worldview. It's one we would do well to be weary of.
THOUSANDS DETAINED SINCE JANUARY; THOUSANDS MORE DEPORTED BY INS
From: The Los Angeles Times
Published: March 21st 2001
NATIONAL MALL RALLY FOR A "NATIONAL UNION PARTY"
Published: April 4th 2001
A large crowd assembles at the National Mall under an overcast sky with a bit of the sun peaking in. To the west, the Washington Monument; to the east, the visible ruins of the Capitol building. A 32 year old woman from Utah hands me a flier, adorned with portraits of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter surrounding an eagle clutching the American flag with bold, red and blue font declaring: “National Union Party: United We Stand”!
I had been vaguely aware of it before, but this odd arrangement of modern political figures juxtaposed with one another as if belonging to a common pantheon made me realize something with a new sense of lucidity: the Inaugural Attacks haven't just been a new impetus for hatred and violence; it's also bequeathed to us a new, shared political iconography within living memory, and a large political vacuum to fill with that worldview in mind.
In these hallowed and historic grounds, a rather strange coalition of celebrities and political hopefuls have announced the creation of the “National Union Party”. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State appointed by the late George W. Bush before being controversially dismissed by Donald Rumsfeld, was one of the stars of the show.
"Some might look at the ruins of our Capitol, and see only the tragedy of a United States unable to protect itself at a crucial moment," said Powell to an audience of thousands, "but I know that there's more to the story here. The one told in our anthem, what Francis Scott Key saw during the bombardment of Fort McHenry: that our flag was still there. That we can rebuild our nation, just as we helped rebuild Europe following World War II, and just as we restored the Union after the Civil War.
"This is not just a site of mourning. This is the place where we will continue to better the lives of the American people, and the world, through our unwavering devotion to democracy."
He shared the stage with noted actor Sylvester Stallone, who gave a short and somber address, "I know some of you are probably wondering what I'm doing here. It may surprise you to know that I'm here because the late President Bush had invited me to his inauguration. I witnessed the terrible aftermath of those attacks firsthand, and ever since then, I've been wondering what I should do with those horrible memories of what had happened. And I think this is it."
Chuck Norris and Ricky Martin were there for similar reasons and gave a few brief remark each, while Arnold Schwarzenegger directly announced what many of the other guests are hinting at for themselves, "I'm going to run for the House as a member of this party. I could not be happier with the people I see in it so far."
Political and pop culture celebrities weren't the only guests, however. They were joined by Senators Joe Frank Harris (D-GA), George Busbee (D-GA), Jill Long Thompson (D-IN), Richard Griffin (R-MI), John Ashcroft (R-MO), and Matt Salmon (R-AZ), who delineated the proposal in a more Washington-friendly manner.
“It's got everything both parties like: nationalism for Republicans, and unions for Democrats,” joked Senator Harris. “But seriously, the National Union Party won't just host career politicians; they'll also be everyday folks seeking political office: hard-working, reasonable, and proud of their country.”
“To be extremely clear what we hope to achieve with the National Union mandate: I don't really want to see winners and losers in these particular House elections, given the tragic circumstances that caused them,” noted Senator Thompson, “and so we sought to make something like what Lincoln made during the Civil War, or what Churchill had during World War II. Or rather, sought to expand upon a foundation laid by the many hands of past Congressmen and Presidents.”
Senator Salmon was more succinct: “After all the red tape is gone through, voters will see “NU” next to one House candidate's name but no 'R' or 'D' for any of them. Elections for state offices will remain unchanged.”
Perhaps not in all states, however. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington are the first states who have had state legislatures pass laws against renaming or creating parties shortly before a special election in response to the announcement of this very rally.
Many hardliner Democratic Senators are also decrying the move, claiming a Republican conspiracy to “capture the currently right-leaning electorate with appeals to moderation” so they can have “total government control”, in the words of Senator William Sorrel (D-VT) yesterday.
An amendment has also been made available for ratification that would enable “state legislatures to appoint a delegation to the House, with the same party affiliations as those who once held the seats, in any event that claims more than half of the sitting Congress”. The aforementioned state legislatures were the first to sign off on it.
“It's abundantly clear that they made this proposal now, as opposed to way back in January, to dispirit us in pursuing our National Union dream,” said Senator Ashcroft to our reporters today. “But we can rise above that. George Washington lived in, and then yearned for, an America without the division and fervor that comes with party politics. I hope that with the National Union Party, the character of a candidate is seen as more important than the letter next to their name."
NASA LAUNCHES 2001 MARS ODYSSEY
From: The Chicago Sun-TimesPublished: April 7th 2001
DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS FILE AGAINST NEW VOTING LAWS, CLAIM CONSPIRACY
From: The Washington Post
Published: April 16th 2001
Yet another lawsuit has been filed by Democrats, although now they have some help from Greens and various third parties who have accused state legislators of violating the Due Process Clause in their new voting regulations. I'm not sure if the reality of a Rumsfeld Supreme Court has sunk in for these people, but their main gripe is that in many states a party has exactly 70 days before the election to register if it didn't receive more than 10% of the vote last time, on top of the preexisting prerequisites (often involving a certain number of signatures); this was likely done to prevent a left-wing centrist party to rival the National Union Party from popping up. But as they say about glasshouses and throwing stones, a similar lawsuit was also taken up by National Union supporters against the restrictions on renamed or newly minted political parties, and the proponents for the latter are thoroughly mixed up with the movement to pass a state legislature appointment amendment.
There are rather sound rationales for the special elections to be essentially canceled in favor of appointment pursuant to their proposal, among them the noxious smog of fear and jingoism smothering all real debate, but many liberal supporters are doing this out of a deep-seated sense of paranoia.
“They want to make this a one party state,” said Sarah Lumberman, a Democrat running for Washington's first district, “with a Republican Supreme Court, President and Congress. An unholy trinity of politics, born from their coup d'etat.”
The phrase 'coup d'etat' has been popping up with increasing frequency in left-wing circles in relation to the Republicans. Where many can see crass opportunism, others are able to puzzle out a conspiracy to replace the government under the watchful eye of a conservative cabal.
“Ask any well-informed person: the Bilderberg Group orchestrated the Inaugural Attacks,” said Jacquelyn Moore, a member of the Democratic Party in Vermont seeking election, “they're pinning it on Arabs to whip up hate, and to further their imperialistic agenda in the Middle East. It's Afghanistan today, Iraq tomorrow.”
Last edited: