I wrote the letter below to my local newspaper, The Contra Costa Times, on May 22, 2007, including the preface which was a note to the newspaper not meant for publication.
Today is June 3, 2007 and, after obviously having learned, if in no other way than through my letter to the editor, that The Regime has set itself up to easily officially become the dictatorial power in The Former United States of America (The FUSA), The Times has not contacted me about publishing the letter.
More importantly, from what I can gather by doing a search on The Contra Costa Times web site, this newspaper has not even covered the drastic change in national security policy.
I hope that the editorial staff at The Contra Costa Times will believe, as I do, that this information is urgent and time sensitive. -------------------------
If you like having George W. Bush as your president or The Regime of which it seems George W. Bush is just a minor part, as your leader, you'll love National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51.
In it, under any catastrophic condition, as vaguely defined by this directive, anywhere in the world, George W. Bush will become a dictator.
He'll not be a dictator in The United States of America or, actually, The Former United States of America, as The Regime has divided the citizens of this country against one another. Under NSPD 51, the USA will become the ECG , The Enduring Constitutional Government (and it will be anything but constitutional).
If you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html on the official White House web site and read this directive, you'll see that it can't be taken any other way.
If the mainstream media does not report on this directive, it will be complicit in installing the first self appointed dictator in the history of our nation.
Two questions come to mind when thinking about this directive.
Why now, as we draw closer to the 2008 presidential election?
How can anyone support this regime?
I have just finished writing a follow-up letter to The Contra Costa Times.
I sent you the letter to the editor found below on 5/22/07.
The subject of the letter is the new National Security Presidential Directive, NSPD 51. This directive was created and published on the official White House web site on May 9, 2007. It revokes National Security Presidential Decision Directive 67 which was created in October of 1998 and which, along with FEMA's Federal Preparedness Response Circular 65, adequately covered the necessary scenarios to maintain a Constitutional Government in case of a legitimate catastrophic event.
One may have a more difficult time reading FPRC 65 than NSPD 51 because the former rightly spreads the responsibility for maintaining a Constitutional Government among the many administrative departments which should be involved in that task.
National Presidential Security Directive 51 is easier and quicker to read because all power goes to "The President". In addition, the parameters which define a "catastrophic event" are very loosely widened, making NSPD 51 extremely easy to implement.
Not only have you not published my letter, but I can not find any coverage of this extreme and unnecessary updating of a national emergency plan by doing a search on The Contra Costa Times web site.
I know that some people would rather call others names, such as "alarmists", than to closely investigate changes in our government's policies as extreme as the NSPD 51 is. I hope that this isn't the reason you're not publishing my letter.
I would also like to know what you think it is about NSPDD 67/FPRC 65 that necessitated their revocations and the implementation of NSPD 51.
By its not even covering this change in policy, The Times obviously concurs that NSPDD 67/FPRC 65 was inadequate and that it was so obviously necessary to potentially bestow dictatorial powers upon George W. Bush based upon a very loose and widely encompassing definition of a "catastrophic event" that it wasn't even important to let the American people know.
Do you honestly look at the implementation of a national policy change that easily opens the door to dictatorship for the president as being "no big deal" or "all in a day's work"?
Please help me understand why The Times does not find this drastic change in national emergency policy important enough to report to the people.
I urge anyone and everyone reading this article to write to their local newspapers and to bring this unwarranted and dangerous national security policy change to their attention.
I urge you to follow-up often until they either publish your letter or give you a reason why they don't feel that this policy change warrants publishing your letter.
If your local newspaper has not even covered this change, I urge you to ask them why they don't feel that covering it is important.
I ask you to share their reasoning with the rest of us. Who knows, maybe we are being "alarmists" in this case. If so, we should probably stop.
On the other hand, we should want everyone, everywhere to know any lame reasons why a newspaper doesn't find a government's setting itself up to easily become a totalitarian power newsworthy.
As a final step, I would urge everyone who is reading this article and who learns of the excuses by specific newspapers for not covering this important directive to not only become a thorn in the side of your own local newspaper, but to write to the other newspapers that refuse to cover this policy change and to become thorns in their sides as well.
If the mainstream media won't cover important events or ask hard questions of our so called leaders, then we must continue to cover important events and ask hard questions of the mainstream media.
It's time to start relentlessly catalyzing the mainstream media.