OBJECTION: to President Bush entertaining Prince Charles
Attention 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 said:
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 I’m 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. It’s 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 world’s 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 doesn’t 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 wouldn’t 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 UK’s 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 Queen’s 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 - won’t do.
