OBJECTION: to President Bush entertaining Prince Charles
- A friendly piece of trans-Atlantic advice to Americans from one of Condoleezza Rice's most active supporters over here -Peter Dow, Owner, Rice for President Yahoo GroupAttention Americans! Who are your true friends? Not the Windsors!
President Bush's close encounter of the 3rd Reich kind with Prince Charles Windsor at the White House
I PROTEST most strongly against the visit to the White House of Prince Charles and wife Camilla to be entertained by President Bush and his wife. (When? - this Wednesday I think)
BBC News wrote: BBC: Whirlwind US tour for Royal pair
Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall will visit New York, Washington and San Francisco during their first joint overseas tour.
In Washington they will lunch and dine with President George Bush
What are my reasons for objecting to this?
I am a republican and a democrat.
(My politics should not be equated exactly with the US Republican and Democrat parties - I am not a US citizen - I am Scottish, living in Scotland - and so Im not a member of either party, although I am part of the world-wide group of supporters of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.)
In other words, politically I support the establishment and maintenance of democratic republics everywhere in the world.
That means, for example, I support the democratic republic of the United States of America, wishing to see the USA thrive and standing together with it, shoulder to shoulder, to take on all enemies of democracy, freedom and republican government - such as Al Qaeda in the war on terrorism.
In principle, I support the overthrow of undemocratic regimes of one kind or another - monarchies such as Saudi Arabia or the United Kingdom, Stalinist dictatorships, as in North Korea, the former Saddam Hussein regime or theocratic dictatorships as in Iran.
I have a particular interest in opposing the United Kingdom - its Queen Elizabeth and its heir apparent Prince Charles - as that is the undemocratic regime which denies me, as a Scot and a Briton, of my democratic rights. Its the UK state which oppresses and subjugates me and takes away my freedom.
Now the UK, down through the years, has been compelled by popular political struggle to allow certain pseudo-democratic changes to the regime - such as not-really-free-and-fair elections and not-really-just courts pretending to apply the rule of law, while actually imposing arbitrary justice.
For those engaged in high-profile protests and extra-parliamentary democratic politics, a rule of judicial terror is imposed to back up the terror of the police imposed on the streets.
The UK state is a terror state and Queen Elizabeth is the worlds most dangerous terrorist primarily because she and her family not only oversee their terror state but they manage to co-opt royalist-sympathizer politicians to give their kingdom a veneer of pseudo-democratic respectability.
So that makes Prince Charles the second most dangerous terrorist in the world so why is President Bush inviting terrorists to the White House when he is supposed to be fighting a war on terror?
The UK is perhaps a half-way house between an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia and a proper democracy like the United States.
So half-a-loaf is better than none. But as a principled republican I am not settling for anything short of a democratic republic - no Kingdom for me, thanks all the same.
The citizens of the US would not, most of them, want to live or come home to anything other than a democratic republic in the USA - why should they?
Americans want to elect their President and not have a King or Queen forced upon them as head of state.
And similarly, you must not expect me to agree to anything less than a democratic republic - why should I?
It is Queen Elizabeth that is the ceremonial head or figurehead of the UK state (Prince Charles expects to take over that role when the Queen dies though) - but a figurehead is an important person who can do an enormous amount of damage to the democracy of a country.
The power to be a figurehead is a central power.
A figurehead is not as insignificant a thing as you might think.
The royalists are insisting that the Queen is to remain the figurehead. A figurehead is a decisive role because the figurehead person serves to approve the status quo - here, rubber-stamping the UK royalist, fascist, police state and implicitly, the death, destruction, disaster and missed-opportunities that it imposes.
Obviously, the Prime Minister is a key officer in the UK state and the Queen rubber-stamps what the PM does or doesnt do as well.
Likewise, the First Minister of Scotland is rubber-stamped, indiscriminately.
Moving to a republic would afford the people an opportunity to replace a hellish rubber-stamp with the political context to commence sorely needed action to liberate us from the fascists who are making lives hell - fascist police, judges and other assorted UK royalist, fascist state officials.
Some people advance the theory that the UK Prime Minister is an acting head of state. Does the Prime Minister then have the power to have the fascist police and judiciary urgently replaced en masse and - if they wouldnt go quietly - shot as required, by calling in the military?
The UK police and judiciary as presently constituted, form the core of the national enemies within and removing them and reconstituting the forces of the state according to democratic principles will be quite a task.
I would question that the PM could easily do that, even with the consent of the House of Commons (There is no such consent presently, nor willingness by the PM, sadly. Sort of banning fox-hunting was as much as elected royalists could manage.).
I mean, it is wishful thinking to think that the PM does now have the power to do the necessary but there is presently no evidence that the PM has that power under the UKs constitution from hell.
(If there were compelling evidence such as, for example, the dead body of the Queen then of course one would have to reconsider then the powers of the PM in the new context.
Thus Oliver Cromwell, leading as evidence the dead body of King Charles I, who had his head chopped off, could fairly claim to have head of state powers.)
The House of Lords, royalist lawyers, courts and the Queens officers themselves would presumably challenge such head of state powers in a Prime Minister.
Certainly the UK royalist, fascist police state would oppose the First Minister of Scotland presently having similar head of state powers to end royalist fascism in Scotland. (Take a look at the Scotland Act.)
We need heads of states to act against the UK royalist fascists as soon as possible and arguing for republics for the nations and the overthrow of the monarchy is the context in which those heads of states would emerge.
Just voting for royalist candidates, from royalist parties - Scottish Nationalist, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UK Independence, Green and so on - just electing Members of Parliaments who must give allegiance to the Queen - wont do.
British Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries should be welcomed to the USA
So while I am pleased to see Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visiting the USA and meeting with President Bush or Secretary of State Rice, I take a different view with regard to members of the UK royal family being given a similar such preferential and high-profile welcome.
Welcoming Prince Charles to the White House will be understood from Scotland and Britain as President Bush accepting the role of the monarchy in Scotland and Britain - being seen to stand with the royalist, fascist police state of the United Kingdom - rather than clearly siding with the democratic rights of the people of Scotland and Britain.
In short, Prince Charles is my enemy and I dont want anyone to be seen being friends with my enemy.
There is a clear choice for the USA government - to support democracy throughout the world - which I thought was President Bushs and Secretary Rices policy - and be loved for that stance - as I love Condi Rice.
Or the USA government could go back to the discredited old policy of supporting regimes that deny proper democracy to their people - and whether President Bush means to or not, when he meets with Prince Charles, its going to look like he has decided to support the UK regime and not the democratic rights of the British people.
President Bush spoke some fine words about spreading democracy during his inaugural speech and some of the people of the world must have believed in what he said - hoped that he meant what he said.
But now many Scottish and British republicans are going to feel betrayed by President Bush and particularly by Condi Rice in whom I have so much faith.
Many of us really expected better from Condi and I am hoping that at the last minute she can avoid getting herself tangled up with Prince Charless visit to the White House and avoid meeting Charles at any time while hes in the USA.
Prince Charles at the White House is going to look like a stab in the back to most republican lovers of freedom and fighters for freedom living in the many countries - Britain, Canada, Australia and so on - where we are not allowed to elect a President but instead get Queen Elizabeth, like it or not.
Its also going to look like President Bush is saying to the Scots, Britons, Canadians, Australians and the rest something like
President Bush, paraphrased wrote:
Hey you lot over there - Scots, Britons, Canadians, Australians - you lot are not good enough to elect your own president - you are stuck with the Windsor Queens and Kings to come!
W likes Prince Charles - so get used to the idea that King Charles will be your next head of state - forget any idea of electing a President of Britain or a President of Scotland or your own President. All that stuff I said about spreading democracy and freedom - I didnt mean it - tough!
The welcome of Prince Charles to the White House will be humiliating and insulting to many Scottish and British republicans - as that is what I am, and that is how I now feel - humiliated and insulted.
On what I meant by a close encounter of the third reich kind. That is a phrase I used on my website to equate the meetings with royalty with that of the Queens Uncle Edward when he met with Hitler.
Scottish National Standard Bearer website wrote: Blair: the shoulder of a hypocrite
Close Encounters Of The Third Reich Kind
Bush and Blair say they are standing shoulder-to-shoulder to win the war on terrorism - fair enough, and we should certainly fight and win that war.
However, the said President, Prime Minister, their advisors and their predecessors, who got us into this mess, don't have much of an understanding of how to get us out.
Fortunately, one senior Bush cabinet member understands more than most - US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
Consider U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair's hypocrisy when he says he is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States of America in fighting the war on terrorism.
In addition, he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the world's number one terrorist - Queen Elizabeth.
The Queen is a friend and backer of like-minded Royalty, dictators and tyrants ruling many of the Arab or Islamic states - good recruiting territory for Bin Laden.
These local despots encourage and fund their local heroes waging terrorism abroad in order to distract them from figuring out that they'd be better off fighting for genuine freedom and democracy at home.
We can take Blair seriously when and if he ever starts a prosecution in Parliament of Queen Elizabeth and her family for treason against Britain and its allies.
Remember in the 1930s, British appeasement of Hitler and the Queen's Uncle Edward Entertaining Nazis? (Q.U.E.E.N.) Like uncle like niece.
The treacherous United Kingdom Royal family conspiring with Adolf Hitler to betray Britain, Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Who are the USAs staunch allies in the war on terror - it is British democrats and republicans like myself!
We are the USAs staunchest allies! Not Prince Charles!
The Windsor royal family is nobodys ally unless they agree with their undemocratic monarchist privileges. If they could, the British imperialist-monarchists would go back to ruling America as a British colony - theyd make Americans their subjects if they could. Taxation but no representation.
Prince Charles has already got his hands on Canada.
But does he expect to become King of the Royal United States of America?
No. Prince Charles is greedy enough but his advisors are not stupid enough to think that he can take the USA as well.
But entertaining this Prince IS akin to surrendering vast portions of the English speaking world over to the royalist terrorists.
Realistically, the visit for Prince Charles is more to do with keeping power where the Windsors have it already.
If the royals are friendly with the most powerful republican in the world - the President of the USA - then Prince Charles is expecting that the President will give no support or encouragement to republicans wishing to oust the Windsors from realm countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and so on.
But allowing the monarchists to rule does have consequences in the USA itself.
The 9/11 attacks and other terrorist attacks have originated from royalist countries - Saudi Arabia mainly but terrorist websites and organisations have been allowed free reign for years under the royalists here.
It's not that Tony Blair or even the Queen wanted the USA attacked - far from it - it is more a question of gross incompetence (as in the Titanic sinking) which comes about when the country is so badly run by the royalists that good people are locked up or leave the country in disgust.
The point is to be the best we can in the war on terror - so it would be better to move the Windsor realm countries to republics as soon as possible.
Prince Charles is not the USAs ally - he is the enemy of American democracy and republicanism. Hes not an ally in the war on terror in fact, he is a terrorist himself.
Dont welcome Prince Charles - snub him!
I am NOT calling for a snub of Americas closest ally.
Prince Charles is NOT your (Americas) closest ally!
Britain IS your close ally!
The British people ARE your close allies!
British republicans ARE your closest allies and a lot closer allies than British royalists!
A snub of Prince Charles is NOT a snub of Britain!
A snub of Prince Charles IS a snub of monarchy!
A snub of monarchy is NOT a snub of Britain!
The British royalists keep referring to Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the United Kingdom but the Kingdom - the UK state - cannot always be relied upon as Americas useful ally. The royalists running the Kingdom are too incompetent and undemocratic always to be relied upon by anyone a British Republic would be a better and more reliable ally, as would a Scottish Republic.
The British people are generally good, loyal allies of America - many of whom are republicans but, of us all, it is the British republicans who are most enthusiastically allied to the American republic, the best and most loyal allies of America.
Dont trust the Kingdom! Trust the people!
By entertaining Prince Charles, President Bush IS snubbing Americas closest allies - British republicans!
So my post is NOT a compliment to Bush - that is true. It is a protest!
It is a protest BY one of Americas closest allies - a British republican - a protest that we British republicans are being snubbed by this welcome of Prince Charles to the White House.
We British republicans are loyal to our fellow American republicans - we simply expect the same loyalty back - and we dont want to be betrayed by an American president entertaining our enemy the enemy of British republicans Prince Charles!
Declaration of Independence. Tribute to signers wrote:
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they? Twenty-four
were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were
farmers and large plantation owners and the others held
respectible positions; men of means, well educated. However,
they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full
well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Five signers were captured by the British
as traitors, and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the
Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.
Nine fought and died from wounds
or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution.
These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians.
They were soft-spoken men of means and education.
They had security, but they valued liberty more.
Please take a few moments while enjoying your 4th of July
holiday and silently give thanks to these patriots for
many gave the ultimate price, their lives, for freedom.
But it wasn't British democrats or British republicans who wanted to deny America its independence. No democrat or republican would ever wish to do that.
It must have been King George III, Queen Elizabeth's and Prince Charles's predecessor, who fought against American independence with the help presumably of other British imperialist-monarchists - Queen, Princes, Princesses, Dukes and Duchesses, His Majesty's Government, the King's royalist army and all the other royalist hangers-on.
and Prince Charles has too much in common with King George III to be deserving of a welcome at the White House.
King George III was America's enemy. And Prince Charles is America's enemy too.
Ancestry isn't the problem. It is the undemocratic rule of Kings that they share and makes them the enemies of America and all who love freedom.Peter Dow, Scottish National Standard Bearer
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail