Wexler and Kucinich introduce Articles of Impeachment

One wonders if Bush will return from his European trip, or just head straight for Dubai?

Congressman Wexler just signed on as co-sponsor of Dennis Kuchinich's articles of impeachment, as shown in the text of this letter that I just found in my in-box.

Our effort to hold the Bush/Cheney Administration accountable has taken another dramatic step forward. Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the first Articles of Impeachment ever to be introduced against President Bush. It includes, in total, thirty-five Articles detailing this Administration's blatant abuse of power. Today, I enthusiastically co-sponsored this vitally important bill.

I am grateful for Dennis' leadership on this issue and for the steadfast support that countless Americans have given to both of our efforts to redeem our government and expose the crimes of Bush and Cheney.

I will now expand my efforts to secure impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee for these new Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.

Many of the charges against President Bush are well known – and would shock the conscience of everyday Americans if only the national media would be willing to report on these stark facts.

The Articles present a stunning narrative of offenses that have go well beyond previous crimes committed by any US chief executive. In fact no President or Vice President in history has done more to undermine our constitution.

These charges are broad, with 35 separate allegations including the deliberate lies regarding WMDs that led us to war and the approval of illegal wiretapping of American citizens. The Articles also include new allegations of high crimes – including the explicit approval for high Administration officials to violate treaties and US law banning the use of torture.

The Democratic Party gained a majority in the House and Senate due in large part to our promises to end the corruption of the Republican majority and to hold the Administration accountable to the law. This courageous bill is a crucial step towards fulfilling this promise, but – like the Articles against Cheney – they require your support to convince Democrats and open-minded Republicans to support this bold but necessary action.

Time is running out so we must work together to spread the message and apply pressure.

First, please encourage your friends and family members to sign up at WexlerWantsHearings.com – as it will allow us to keep in touch with you and speak to a wider audience. If you haven't yet put in your phone and address, please sign up again, as we will be doing telephone town halls in the near future.

Second, call your representative and urge them to support Impeachment hearings.

Finally, contact newspapers, news stations, and your favorite bloggers and urge them to report on this movement. We need to keep Impeachment a significant news story until the Democratic leadership sees the value in it.

McClellan Agrees to Testify:

I was pleased to inform you yesterday that Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers met my call to have Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testify under oath. I am thrilled to inform you that McClellan has agreed to testify on June 20th at 10AM. This will be the first step in what we hope will be ongoing and deepening examinations of the stark evidence and charges against both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Thank you for your continued passion and advocacy. Your support means so much to me.

Sincerely,

Congressman Robert Wexler

So far, blog reaction has been muted and MSM reactions - well, I've not found any. (Contrast that with the first rumors of Clinton's impeachment.) That could change with your help.

Ralph Nader says:

Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush.

It is never too late to enforce the Constitution. It is never too late to uphold the rule of law. It is never too late to awaken the Congress to its sworn duties under the Constitution. But it will soon be too late to avoid the searing verdict of history when on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush escapes the justice that was never pursued by those in Congress so solely authorized to hold the President accountable.

It's damn important to go through this process now. Why? Because that will put the next president - whoever they are - on notice that we will not tolerate this, nor will we allow them to put the powers Bush illegally, immorally and unconstitutionally claimed in their pocket.

So, if you are a Republican and don't see the point to this - think of what a Democratic president could do using these powers to track down and punish "alleged war-criminals" and "co-conspiritors." If one can be detained without trial on suspicion of terrorism, certainly it's even more reasonable to detain those who have arguably committed or facilitate treason.

So, let us do this right, by the book. And do it now before either "side" is surely in power. Right now, Nancy Pelosi has a duty to the Republic - and that duty comes before her duty to party or personal ambition.

Hail Dubya, ITMFA

Get this custom sticker
from my Impeach Gallery

More designs soon. Meanwhile, if you'd like to run off a few million yourself on sticker stock - please do!

While I'd love you to support myself with a few sales of these designs, if you want to make a lot to support this campaign, I would rather you set up your own store, or printed them out yourself. This version is approved for that use.

The Official Graphictruth Unendorsement of Ron Paul

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul: "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

I think Ron Paul needs the blessing of being on the short end of those taught "morality and civility" by Christian churches. I grew up in a town where there were as many churches as taverns - and there were a LOT of taverns. If the one thing didn't justify a particular flavor of abusive crap, well, the other was there to fill in for it.

As much as I personally benefited from the civility that is undoubtedly well-taught by the Episcopal Church, "morality" and "conformity" were pretty much interchangeable concepts. While some in that church were unquestionably both moral and ethical persons, I would say that at least half were there because it was "the right church" to belong to, if you were "the right sort of person."

It was no different with the Catholics, the Baptists, the Lutherans and the various Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.

Later on, as I came to deal with multiples and abuse survivors and as everyone started comparing notes; there was hardly a one of us where religion had not played a huge role in our abuse - especially the "keeping silence" part. The worse the abuse, the more rigid the facade, the taller the "pillar of the community."

There is a certain sort of person that builds such a facade for the sole purpose of keeping their particular brand of evil out of the public eye, while maintaining a secure hold on their access to victims.

And then, of course, the scandals started to happen as one by one, abused persons gained courage from one another (via the Internet, I suspect) and started disclosing. The Catholic Church has been hit hardest, but none have been immune. And there is one common thread - the idea of unaccountable, unquestionable "moral" authority.

I'm sorry, but if you simply wish to shove government out of the way of theocratic dominion, you and I must have words, Sir, for I've seen to what degree these people can be trusted, these people who wish to rule without the inconvenience of laws and customs that would permit escape from their clutches.

We have only just managed to break their stranglehold of conformity and moralism, just managed to pry their fingers from our throats, and we have just now started to speak seriously of the damage that has been done and how to proceed from here. We continue to fight those who would brand our rebellion and our individuality as evil, we resist those who would cheerfully rally the mobs - and those who would gladly sacrifice their own children upon the altar of Church and Conformity.

I've come by my anti authoritarian views honestly and by a very hard row. I trust none who hold themselves unaccountable, and who rely on religious doctrine and custom to justify their desire to dominate, control and exploit others, while I hold those who bow to and blindly trust Authority as being superior to their own conscience and more reliable than their own eyes.

I have nothing against faith - my faith has kept me alive when by all rights I should not have survived. What I take issue with is social engineering and ritually enforced cultural conformity - and that is all that Christmas has been for the last hundred years or so in these United States; a pastiche of semi-religious, semi-pagan cultural myths which amount to a shared cultural tradition. It is not a matter of faith, or a matter of true religion - it's merely a way of governing the lives of others without being accountable to an electorate or subject to the strictures of Constitution or law. And if it's somewhat benign on the surface, and behind closed doors in many cases, possibly even most - for the sake of those whom the facade is a prison, it must become both optional and transparent.

You, Ron Paul, should damn well know better, working as you do in such a den of vipers, knowing full well the distinction between the substance and the facade it conceals. There's a reason why there IS a constitution - and it's to trump those who would rule by Church, by Fiat and by Tradition.

Up to now, you have said all the right things to impress me. But it seems that as I cast about, you say quite different things to different audiences - and the whole speaks to me of a man who confuses conformity to social norms with morality, and would might well pander to shibboleths, rather than dealing with the scientifically described reality that presidents must - lest they be compared to George Bush.

And it seems to me that when doing the right thing and deference to authority come into conflict, you disappoint me. The fact that you contradicted your own position on the need to impeach Cheney means I must question your motives and alliances. The Largest Minority asks "Why did Ron Paul vote against Impeachment?"

I would like to urge all first-time pro-Paul visitors to my leftist pinko blog to please save all reactionary hate mail until after you’ve actually read what I have to say. Paul’s vote to table the impeachment resolution, then to refer it to committee is especially troubling coming from a supposed consitutionalist. He voted with the Democratic leadership on both accounts.

...

Perhaps even more confusing is this interview from the far-right website InfoWars from March:

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

“I would have trouble arguing that he’s been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.”

Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of “soft fascism,” Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

.. Ron Paul’s commitment to the constitution was tested yesterday, and it unfortunately fell short of our expectations. It’s contradictory to say there isn’t sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment against the very same people you say are violating the constitution. Impeachment isn’t just an option, it’s an obligation. There’s no glory in defending the indefensible, and Paul’s vote was just that. I urge his supporters to contact Paul about his vote. Tell him to vote in favor of impeachment the next time Kucinich brings it back to the floor. And liberals, don’t forget to do the same with your representatives.

I'm not going to bother doing that. I'll be voting for Kucinich. Whoever gets the official nod.

The David Kucinich AND Ron Paul Revolution.

Ron Paul Wins CLC Straw Poll in Northern Nevada

Presidential candidate Ron Paul has won the straw poll conducted at the Conservative Leadership Conference this weekend in northern Nevada. Paul finished with 33 percent of the vote, more than double his nearest contender....

read more | digg story

So, of course the cries will be that Ron Paul supporters showed up and that other supporters did not. And that is not just true, but so obvious it hardly needs observation.

The question should not be what's so remarkable about Ron Paul - because, historically, there's nothing at all remarkable about his stands. The question should be, what lack do all the other candidates have in common to promote such widespread disinterest? Well, on the right, it seems to be the complete lack of willingness to say anything remotely attributable to an understanding of the facts about the war, the economy, the moral and social implications of torture, the concept of "blowback" or a foreign policy based on mutual self-interest rather than power politics and Cold-War vintage "Right Thinking."

Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to out-Regan Ronny on the "hot air and sunshine" front - for instance, there are fine words about "universal health care" - and not one word about paying for it, or the demographically inevitable collapse of social security.

But just as Ron Paul is a living reality check for the Right, Dennis Kucinich is his Lefty Twin on the Left. And boy, is HE out in Left Field. About as far as Ron is to the right - if you are using any sensible measure of left and right in an historical sense. And, despite being "too "out there to take seriously"...

Kucinich tops leading Dems in key CA straw poll

SAN MATEO, CA - Despite millions of campaign dollars being spent by the poll-leading Democratic Presidential candidates to woo California voters, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored a stunning second-place finish in a bellwether Presidential straw poll here today.

In a caucus-like setting open to all Democratic voters in the state, Kucinich came in significantly ahead of top-spenders Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and only slightly behind former U.S. Senator John Edwards.

Official results released by the San Mateo County Democratic Party this evening showed that Edwards received 29% of the total votes cast, Kucinich received just under 24%, and Obama and Clinton came in third and fourth, with 22.5% and 16.8% respectively. The other Democratic candidates were all in the low single digits.

And, unlike most all other campaigners for the office of President, neither one seems particularly fond of authoritarian systems of governance.

“But the difference between the Clinton neo-liberals and the Bush neoconservatives over America’s fundamental role in the world is quite small. The leadership of the two parties is in accord with notion that the American governing class has the authority and the obligation to police the world. They only differ on the question of tactics.” - Dennis Kucinich

Both could also be accused of having "wacky" ideas. Paul's "Hard Money" stance - or in other words, having a money supply that can't be fiddled with for private profit, or to benefit large corporate interests - is considered "wacky."

And I imagine, so is Kucinich's desire to recreate the WPA.

America needs a great new public works program to restore the dream of a full employment economy, to restore the physical health of our nation. On Labor Day, 2003, I announced a new initiative -- an initiative that will enable the United States to rebuild its cities in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt America during the Depression. Through a WPA-type program, this initiative would rebuild our cities, our streets, our water systems, our sewer systems, and new energy systems, while simultaneously putting millions of people back to work.

A wacky idea - but considering the state of our public infrastructure, the impending collapse of many of our bridges, the pressing urgency of creating a "green" infrastructure and of course, the obvious necessity of either relocating entire populations or building huge levy systems - how the HELL are we going to accomplish this from a purely local standpoint, using only capitalistic urges? Hell, even IF we use as much capitalistic motivation as possible, this is something that really DOES have to be addressed centrally to a degree, just to prioritize the most critical infrastructure issues. Bridges in poor states and counties are still critical to the regional and national economies. Failing evies in poor areas tend to result in nearby rich folk getting wet.

Combining the number of unemployed and underemployed with the huge number of people returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts presents us with both a practical need and a moral obligation. Returning combat vets will need jobs and - let's be blunt - may be too impaired to return to the jobs and lives they had without a period of support in an ordered context. They will have the burning need to do something useful and creative, to redeem themselves in their own eyes with the equal need to spend as little time dealing with hassles and politics as possible. That's what PTSD does to you, and just about everyone returning from Peewee Bush's Great Adventure has a thousand-yard stare and memories that would gag a maggot. So we owe them. And it's a debt that we have no choice but to pay - one way or another, whether we are wise enough to realize there IS a debt or not.

So, I support Kucinich's idea. I think it's a great idea. I'm not so fond of his ideas of paying for them, because it's essentially good old confiscatory taxation. I agree, corporate taxes have fallen way below what they probably should be. And certain salaries are obscene. And if it were my place to judge, I'd say there are people who have way too much money for their own good.

But I'm a Libertarian, so expressing my disapproval is as far as I can go in that direction. I also know something Dennis seems to have not learned. There's a Liberal maxim: "When you tax something, you get less of it." This is true, to a point, but it's not very far from no tax at all. Past a certain point, what you get is increasing levels of tax-evasion, non-compliance and outright criminality. Grey markets shade to black, and a widespread, pervasive and well-earned disrespect for Authority thrives and prospers. Not a wise thing in a well-armed society, as many a DEA agent has learned. Or for that matter, many a Prohibition Agent. Not wise to go looking for stills in the Blue Ridges, not without a lot of other men, dogs and helicopters. And even then, you might just step in a bear trap.

But that does not mean that it's impossible or should not be done. We just need to figure out a way to do it that is both conscionable and Constitutional. And, I observe that it's certainly no worse, constitutionally speaking, than a large standing army. But the point is, we must do it in a way that is not unfair, is not inequitable, and which does not reek of class warfare - and that's what confiscatory taxation amounts to, whatever fine-sounding words you clothe it in.

When the government "governs least," by deliberately avoiding as many restrictions on individual liberties as possible, and by firmly restraining those who aspire to levels of power in competition with government from limiting individual liberty for their own profit, choices are expanded, and solutions to common problems are solved in more organic ways.

Neither party supports candidates that favor that approach to leadership. All of the front runners - even the ones I actually like somewhat - are still obviously men and women of power and influence who want to have more power and influence, operating within a system that assumes that the pie is finite. In order for them to have more, YOU must have less.

You see, that's how they KNOW they have more power. Not so much by the positive and productive things they can do - but by token of the things they can get away with that you cannot. This attitude is particularly conspicuous among Republicans, but corrupt Democrats are not unknown, historically. Not even within my own memory. I remember Strom Thurmond, for example. Of course, he did switch parties in '64 or thereabouts.

Why is it that the more a candidate is touted as a "front-runner," the more dubious they seem? For instance, despite an overwhelming anti-war mandate from the Democratic base, neither Clinton nor Obama are actually on record as anti-war. Both voted for it, up to the point where it was completely unsustainable, politically. Nor is Clinton very eager to condemn the illegitimate expansion of powers undertaken by Bush, leading one to think that her only objection to it is that she doesn't have them yet.

And there's not a single public policy pronouncement from any of them that doesn't look like it won't cost you in terms of increased cost, time, inconvenience and erosion of privacy. There's a distinct lack of common sense and fact based argument - with two exceptions, who are being dismissed by all "legitimate media" as kooks.

Well, if paying attention to cause and effect is kooky, call me a kook! Here's Dennis on drug policy. Interestingly enough, on this issue he makes pretty much the same arguments that Paul does - and from a diametrically opposite political position.

I know that proponents of the Drug War will say that I am pro-drugs. I am not. As mayor of Cleveland, I saw first-hand the damage done by addiction to drugs, including alcohol. I also witnessed that the wasted resources and collateral damage did not promote a safe society. It is unconscionable that only one bed exists for every ten people that apply for drug treatment. Our priorities and our resources are being put in the wrong place. The primary job of law enforcement should be protecting our country and its citizens -- not protecting people from themselves.

Now, Kuchinich and Paul are so ideologically opposed that you might honestly expect them to explode like matter and antimatter on contact. It's quite interesting that they both get to the same conclusion from the same set of facts. This tells me that the facts are themselves unavoidably compelling. And yet it's only the "kooks" that will say out loud that which everyone knows: "the emperor has no clothes."

Yet again, we are in the process of being presented Hobson's Choice and yet again, the process is being engineered to forestall any candidate who will continue to support the obscure, complex, but massively lucrative trade, defense and economic policies that have beggared large portions of the world and are in the process of turning us into the peons of a corporate state.

We are being presented a choice of comfortable liars and panderers, nice people, some of them, but utterly committed to the interests of and service to a cultural "elite" that has few, if any concerns in common with thee and me.

The bribes they offer us for our votes differ - but they are comparatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Even universal health care is a tiny expenditure compared to the ongoing "wars on" various indefinables, like terror and drugs and crime, so if that's the price they must pay, they will pay it.

These people have become, in practice, a ruling class, with all the power of Earls, Barons and Princes, with a sense of entitlement that entire sectors of our economy are more than happy to pander to.

One only has to read Forbes or audit The Wealth Channel to note this; the idea that wealth itself makes one superior to the common herd, above common considerations and entitled to deferential treatment. And there is much profit to be made by tugging one's forelock with hand stretched out, so much profit that it's compromised our ideals of citizenship.

Don't get me wrong - I'm no Leveler. I don't believe that a wealthy man's money belongs in my pocket, nor would I stoop to taking advantage of a person's absurdly inflated idea of their own place to profit. To me, it's ethically equivalent to rolling a drunk, though I humbly observe that if they are ethically equivalent, and IF one must compromise one's ethics to survive, being a member of Snoop Dogg's posse or cleaning pools in Kennebunkport is better than rolling drunks.

I don't even object to wealthy people having people serve them. I just want them to remember that those who serve have their own inherent worth and dignity - after all, if they have not earned that themselves, what's the point in having them underfoot?

Our government is in large part defined for us by those who belong to or who are closely affiliated to the power elite. And more or less due to that, it treats us all as barely competent savages, not quite capable of wiping our own butts without instructions on the toilet paper, in need of being reminded of our "place" and certainly not worthy of wandering the streets of the gated communities in which they live.

And when the peons get uppity, well, those who work for the lords and barons tend to haul out their Tasers to "teach us a lesson," as I've observed before in Kerry Triangulates New Failure.

I've learned the obvious lesson - or rather, it's been reconfirmed for me. I've learned to reflexively question authority - and let the answer be an instruction to all.

If questioning EITHER president Bush or John Kerry, the man who provably should be in office both lead to detention, arrest and tasering, it's highly probable the results would not have changed things in an way that would be of significant benefit to 85 to 90 percent of US citizens. We would simply have been consenting to being ruled by which King - not electing a President. Probably, as I suspect was the case with Bob Dole before him, Kerry was a well-paid actor in a timeless charade.

Hence the popularity of Kucinich and Paul - and the desperate attempts to silence and discredit both of them. Neither is entirely likable; both have warts and bumps - but neither is trying to blow smoke up your bum about anything. What you see is what you get, and if that's somewhere short of professionally-coiffed perfection, I can live with that. I can live with either man gaining office. But what I'd really like to see is this: the promise of each to support the other in getting as close as possible, and if necessary, running as a team. And likewise, I'd suggest that if sending 100 bucks to Ron Paul on November 5 is a good idea, sending a hundred bucks to EACH campaign is an even better one.

Hey, when was the last time the field narrowed down to two really great candidates, as opposed to a choice between who sucked least?

Both Paul and Kucinich are in agreement on the single most important concern of the day, at least to me; a return to constitutional government. The rest is all details and philosophy, trivia in comparison to that one grand point of agreement. And on that point, that overriding point, the ultimate "litmus test" for any Citizen - they stand alone, each in isolation on their respective "sides."

The realities that face us today are stark enough that we don't have the luxury of dealing with the little stuff. Anything that is a go or no-go depending on your political philosophy is a sheer luxury this nation cannot afford; we have wasted to many years with such partisan crapola while issues that matter desperately rotted for lack of will, intelligence, guts and comprehension. The place to start is to return to the basis of our Republic and consider every aspect of government and governance in light of what the manual says. From now on, if we don't like what it has to say, instead of ignoring it, we either pass an amendment, or stop whining about it.

And since they both stand for that, I hope both are placing a priority on excellent personal security.

tag: Clinton, Obama, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Democrat, Republican, power politics, common sense, reality based, constitution, constitutional government, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, authoritarianism, election fraud, question authority, respect for authority

Rapid Response Politics.

Ron Paul, Politics and Zazzle.

Our Future is a Nightmare!
by
webcarve

Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

No, this is not a commercial post. Not that I'd mind if you bought one of my shirts, of course. This is far more about the fact that I can make Ron Paul shirts - or any other shirts - on impulse. In my case, the impulse was actually selling this Ron Paul shirt via Zazzle. Which was very cool, and of course caused me to click through to zazzle - and I hadn't done that for a couple of weeks.

Well, they have revised the whole user interface - and I was able to create and publish the design you see above by "customizing" an existing shirt in under ten minutes. If I had been unconcerned about keywords and had been sure about the new text, it would have been about three. And now they have a "zoom" feature that does amazing things to show off detailed designs like mine - so the artist in me is VERY happy with it. Check out both designs to see how well the new system works.

Ok, now start your own store. Why? Because this is not just about selling t-shirts, or even particularly about selling at all. This is about rapid response political speech. It's the way Citizen-Driven politics can counter the massive media and money advantage that backers of the Rudy McClinton's. Whether you support Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, there's no reason to give up. Get online and make stuff happen - because at the very least, you can get enough eyeballs to see the right name and generate enough curiosity to get your candidate heard.

You see that slogan up there, with the graphic? Done the conventional way, with focus groups and marketing consultants and everything else, just generating the idea for that image - the campaign, completely aside from any media buys or any actual material objects, could easily eat up a hundred grand.

But it's my idea - it's why I am voting for him - and he doesn't have to approve of it to benefit. Now, imagine a thousand people each selling a few shirts and giving the idea itself to a few thousand others. Don't give money - donate a little time, thought and effort independently, while facing the disturbingly capitalistic idea that you might make some actual money.

Now, my Ron Paul "correct" shirt is an example of one way to go about it - I don't give the consumer any option with the image and message. But the newer one at top has text on front and back that can be customized. And that is why Zazzle is currently my first choice for online political efforts of this sort - because you have the opportunity to get a shirt up, published and linked the very day something happens, and the first orders will be on people's backs within three.

That's a killer app for politics - and pop culture in general.