Jon Stewart: About that speech...

I meant to post these last night -- good stuff.

I too was a bit distracted by the way Nancy Pelosi kept popping out of her chair after every complete sentence. My husband and I finally decided that Joe (Biden) had secretly installed an ejector cushion on her seat, and was entertaining himself during the speech by launching Nancy into the air, higher and higher, perhaps to see if she would eventually stick to the ceiling (I'm relieved to say that she did not.)

First, President Obama's speech to Congress (complete with a cameo by Jimmy Stewart)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Optimist Prime

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Secondly, the GOP's Mr. Roberts retorts:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Bobby Jindal's Republican Response

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

McCain Adviser Pfotenhauer "not a constitutional scholar"

Nancy Pfotenhauer hasn't read the Constitution.

Chris Matthews has read it. I've read it (and I'm not in politics.) Kucinich carries a pocket copy around in his pocket.

I suppose many neoconservatives don't bother to read the Constitution anymore; their commander in chief has done everything in his vastly expanded power to undermine it's legality during his two terms. Besides... it's just a piece of paper. Right?

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I never understood how this incident was allowed to slide.

Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Americans have been dying for centuries to protect the rights laid out in this sacred document that defines our very democracy and our rights as citizens.

But of course, everything was allowed to slide.

And so we have yet another round of constitutionally-ignorant Republicans who somehow believe they are qualified to lead this once great democracy... right over the cliff.

If the sky wasn't falling, and the racists in the streets...

... we'd be talking about the recent and scathing indictment of the Bush administration by the DOJ - really - and their call for more investigation of unethical and criminal conduct of lawmakers, and of the Bush Administration.

The DOJ actually did its job this time. Investigators from Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility both determined that political pressure did lead to the dismissal of at least three of the nine federal prosecutors fired under Alberto Gonzales' reign of partisan terror.

From the Toledo Blade:

At the time, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted the individuals were all dismissed for inadequate performance, or failure to implement the President’s law enforcement agenda.

But it appears the longtime pal and adviser to President Bush was lying through his teeth. Turns out the real reason some of the top federal lawyers were removed from the job, according to the Justice Department report, was that either the U.S. attorneys had the audacity to prosecute Republicans or because they failed to aggressively prosecute Democrats.

Either way, their behavior ticked off well-connected GOP politicians who had come to expect a politically loyal Justice Department. A couple of calls from powerful New Mexico Republican officeholders helped push former U.S. attorney David Iglesias out of a job. Evidently, the top New Mexico prosecutor was remiss in his duty to produce criminal charges against Democrats in the run-up to the 2006 election.

Another U.S. attorney in Missouri lost his post over a petty complaint from Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, and still another was bumped to make room for a protégé of White House political adviser Karl Rove. There was a pervading culture of partisanship/loyalty-above-all-else in the department, recalled one of the fired attorneys.

“Not only were my colleagues and I not insulated from politics — as we should have been in our jobs as prosecutors — but we were fired for the most partisan reasons,” Mr. Iglesias said.

A nation of laws and not men. How have we let eight years of continuing scandal, corruption, and broken laws go on unchecked?

Is it any wonder that our economy is collapsing and we have lost literally all respect around the world? If we had truly remembered that we are a nation of laws - and Pelosi hadn't cut some deal with the devil and refused to address the out-of-control Bush Administration - perhaps things would be different today.

We'll never know. I hold the House Democratic leadership accountable for failing to do their job.

There are now official documents from the DOJ confirming that the firing of U.S. attorneys was politically motivated.

The commentator in the Toledo Blade, Marilou Jonanek, seems to feel that Americans are 'scandal-weary' -- but are we really? Perhaps all we need is a little old-fashioned justice trickling down from the top.

I do NOT believe that Americans are willing to 'dismiss yet another administration disgrace;' but it is obvious that House Democrats have no interest in bringing Bush to justice, perhaps for their own partisan political reasons. Of course this makes them no better than collaborators, but they expect to get a win out of this mess, and a big one at that. The good of the nation and the rule of law... secondary to winning. How ironic that their impending 'win' will be marred by chaos, recession (if not full out depression,) war and crippling debt. They may win the presidency and a majority, but at what price to the nation?

New Attorney General Michael Mukasey has appointed a federal prosecutor to investigate whether Bush himself broke the law. Unfortunately there may not be time to finish this late-in-coming investigation before this epic (and seemingly endless) administration comes to an end.

There have been so many lies, broken laws and power grabs during the eight years of Bush rule that the White House and the office of president have been forever tarnished and perhaps forever damaged. Certainly our reputation as a nation and any trust we once had from other nations has been squandered.

Because there were no legal consequences for this historic abuse of power, Pelosi has left the door open for a repeat performance in the future. And God help us when it arrives; it will undoubtedly take a generation to recover from this one.

Much ado about fleecing

Whoopee! Negotiators have very nearly settled on a blueprint for how they plan spend our great-grandchildren's money!

Hurray. Meanwhile, China returned triumphant from space; confident in the knowledge that we're about to borrow another $700 billion from them (which would pay for quite a few more trips to space and beyond.) Thank you W, for selling our entire country out from under us.

How long do you imagine it will be before Bush starts raffling off our National Parks and forests? Perhaps the Chinese and Saudis already own them. Its not like anyone would tell us.




CNN:

Under the tentative deal being finalized, the rescue program would be overseen by a board including the treasury secretary, secretary of commerce, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and chairman of the Federal Reserve, said Sen. Kent Conrad, R-North Dakota, who heads the Senate Budget Committee.

What if we don't trust any of these people? I don't trust the three people in above photo - let alone a bunch of unelected government stooges. Do you?

Who exactly are... the secretary of commerce, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the chairman of the Federal Reserve? Who are these people? Undoubtedly Bushies. Isn't everyone in government a Bushie these days? Would you give $700 billion to Brownie?

If our money will be paying for this, shouldn't we get to decide who oversees the deal? I choose Tom Hanks, Jon Stewart and the Dalai Lama. What -- I don't get a say?

We have no trust left, guys. NONE. You have stolen, begged, borrowed and caved so many times now that we don't trust any of you lobbyist creatures.

I wouldn't trust my own 'representative' to oversee this deal. I sure as hell don't trust Paulson and his cronies. Not a single congressman watching over our money? Because congress is at least elected to watch out for our interests.

Terrific.

Verbal brawl in the White House

-- What - George didn't get his way?

It appears the Republicans want their party back! And not a moment too soon.

I'm sure Congress worked very hard to forge a bipartisan compromise; a solution to the financial crisis that was constitutional, and included protection for taxpayers. The very predictable and reoccurring problem is - of course - that compromise isn't (ever) what George and his buddies want. The Neocons want total control of the purse strings - a complete financial coup - and nothing less will ever satisfy them.

George won't be happy until he and his pals have stolen every last borrowed penny.

This was so predictable. That the Republicans fought back... that is a welcome surprise. It may just save our nation from crippling debt and bankruptcy.

Congress - both Republicans and Democrats - hammered out a compromise. But it was never going to fly with the Neocons. They (who created this mess) refuse all compromises, all oversight, all 'rights of man' -- and they spurn and scoff at our Constitution.

They came for our money, our children's money, and our grand children's money. I'm sure they planned to spirit it overseas, perhaps to Dubai.

Thank you Congress -- and especially to congressional Republicans -- for standing firm. Stick to your principles! Don't let up. We're counting on you.

Thank you to the real Republicans. I dream of a day when the Democrats can remember what they once stood for as a party; the party of Kennedy and Roosevelt (they can start by glancing over at Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold.) Perhaps then there will be balance again.

If not... its time to form a third party to represent the growing numbers of us that fall through the cracks. Honestly... I've always been something of a mix: fiscally conservative, socially progressive. And no, I don't mean 'liberal;' progressive... as in 'progress.'

Progress means alternate forms of energy that won't destroy our climate or cause endless wars for oil. Progress means protecting the environment for future generations and simply because it is the right thing to do. Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) created our National Parks Service. Eisenhower (Republican) created the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Republicans have a tradition of preserving the land. They haven't always been greedy destroyers.

Progress means protecting our Constitution against tyranny and any hostile overthrow of our democracy. The Constitution is the only true guardian of our freedom. No foreign war is ever going to make or keep us free. That is our responsibility.

Progress means change from this rule of greed and elitism. Progress means a return to the days when we Americans believed in justice, honor, fair play, prosperity for all. Remember that American dream? Many of our ancestors went through hell to reach our shores so that their descendants could live well and prosper, in freedom and harmony. But they expect us to preserve this dream.

Fiscally conservative and socially progressive. I don't see why we can't live in a nation that succeeds economically and socially. I have never understood why our corporations couldn't be successful in a free market, while taxpaying Americans (and the poor, the down and out) also succeed or at least survive with good jobs, fair pay, good schools and affordable health care. It was only corporate greed that got in the way of balance and the 'good life' in our country, and around the world.

If the corporations - with Neocons promoting this irresponsible behavior - weren't so damn greedy, we'd never have gotten into this mess. We could have had a healthy society that all could live in and thrive.

I hear there are a lot of us who consider ourselves 'fiscally conservative and socially progressive.' Neither party wants us... we need our own representation.

From the New York Times:

September 26, 2008

Talks Implode During a Day of Chaos; Fate of Bailout Plan Remains Unresolved

WASHINGTON — The day began with an agreement that Washington hoped would end the financial crisis that has gripped the nation. It dissolved into a verbal brawl in the Cabinet Room of the White House, urgent warnings from the president and pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker and appealed for her support.

“If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,” President Bush declared Thursday as he watched the $700 billion bailout package fall apart before his eyes, according to one person in the room.

It was an implosion that spilled out from behind closed doors into public view in a way rarely seen in Washington.

By 10:30 p.m., after another round of talks, Congressional negotiators gave up for the night and said they would try again on Friday. Left uncertain was the fate of the bailout, which the White House says is urgently needed to fix broken financial and credit markets, as well as whether the first presidential debate would go forward as planned Friday night in Mississippi.

When Congressional leaders and Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the two major party presidential candidates, trooped to the White House on Thursday afternoon, most signs pointed toward a bipartisan agreement on a grand compromise that could be accepted by all sides and signed into law by the weekend. It was intended to pump billions of dollars into the financial system, restoring liquidity and keeping credit flowing to businesses and consumers.

“We’re in a serious economic crisis,” Mr. Bush told reporters as the meeting began shortly before 4 p.m. in the Cabinet Room, adding, “My hope is we can reach an agreement very shortly.”

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.

The talks broke up in angry recriminations, according to accounts provided by a participant and others who were briefed on the session, and were followed by dueling news conferences and interviews rife with partisan finger-pointing.

Friday morning, on CBS’s “The Early Show,” Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator, said the bailout had been derailed by internal Republican politics.

“I didn’t know I was going to be the referee for an internal G.O.P. ideological civil war,” Mr. Frank said, according to The A.P.Thursday, in the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.

“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”

Read more...

Big Oil's offshore drilling scam

I suspect that most of us 'thinking folks' (those divorced from network television drivel) have already connected the dots between the ridiculously high prices for gas that we are paying... and Bush's last ditch push to get off-short oil drilling rights out of us, and out of Congress.

And of course, Big Oil's endless quest to destroy the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in their never-ending grab for revenue.

The big oil companies can't stand to lose. We've been repeatedly rebuking their attempts to grab these money-making (if not oil-supplying) locations for years. Now we're being punished at the pump.

This is how bullies operate. And there are few bullies with more power - and more determination to keep hauling in the cash - than the big oil companies.

And so I suppose that it is refreshing to hear Nancy Pelosi speak out about it... finally giving some inkling that Congress 'gets it' too.

Congress has been pathetic in nearly every endeavor: their inability to stop the war in Iraq, their refusal to put impeachment on the table, and to hold Bush and Cheney - even Rove, who they have subpoenaed - accountable for breaking law after law. They refused to halt illegal wiretapping (blatantly against our Bill of Rights,) or punish those who deliberately and illegally attacked our 4th Amendment rights as Americans.

In effect; they have weakened the Congressional branch of government to the point of irrelevancy, by refusing to take any responsibility for anything.

They have been... painfully weak, crippled and inept. Or perhaps corrupt. Or perhaps blackmailed. Maybe someday we'll know what the hell was wrong with them the last 8 - especially the last 3 1/2 years when the Democrats supposedly had a majority.

But I suppose Pelosi - like the blind squirrel that occasionally stumbles over a nut - is capable of seeing and speaking out on at least a few obvious issues. Amazingly, the blackmailing of America by Big Oil has made her short list.

From The Gavel:

The president knows, as his own administration has stated, that the impact of any new drilling will be insignificant -- promising savings of only pennies per gallon many years down the road. Americans know that thanks to the two oilmen in the White House, consumers are now paying $4 a gallon for gas. But what Americans should realize is that what the president is calling for is drilling as close as three miles off of America's pristine beaches and in other protected areas.

The president has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.' That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence.

Today, the New Direction Congress will vote on legislation to bring down gas prices by taking crucial steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures market. The president himself could lower prices by drawing down a small portion of our government oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The New Direction Congress will continue to bring forth responsible proposals to increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers, and transition America to a clean, renewable energy independent future.

How the Democrats blew it (woof! woof!)

Alexander Cockburn, in a scathing commentary posted to the upcoming Nation Magazine, has summed the Democratic Party's situation as succinctly as anyone to date. The Democrats have blown it... and on an epic scale.

And it only took them 8 months to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory:

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

The commentary goes on - it is excellent, if wildly depressing.

Thrown to the Dogs

Matt Renner, writing for truthout.org, lays the blame squarely on the Blue Dog coalition; our closet army of Lieber-Bushies hell bent on obstructing any real change or progress in the Democratic party, using their voting bloc to support the Bush agenda, and openly supporting the war in Iraq:

The Blue Dogs pride themselves on being a fiscally conservative group intent on balancing the national budget and paying down the almost $9 trillion national debt. Tim Mahoney, who became the Representative for the 16th district of Florida after disgraced Republican Mark Foley dropped out of the 2006 election, recently became a member of the Blue Dogs. When he joined up, Mahoney described the coalition as a select group with an agenda. "We're hawks on national defense, we're pro-business, especially small business, and we believe in balancing the budget," Mahoney said. According to Mahoney, he faced a thorough vetting process before being accepted into the group. "You have to be interviewed and accepted by the group. You have to be able to demonstrate that you're ideologically supportive of being fiscally conservative. You show them speeches and statements you've made in the past," Mahoney told the Charlotte Sun, a local paper from his district.

The Blue Dogs have apparently informed the Democratic leadership in the House that they support the ongoing occupation of Iraq. According to Mahoney, he met with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and told her "The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism."

Mahoney's description of the Blue Dog's hawkish stance is not officially part of their platform, according to their spokesperson and their web site. The group does not issue press releases on national defense votes, although they have played an instrumental role in passing controversial bills that have been framed by the Bush administration as legislation intended to prevent terrorism.

The Blue Dogs have provided key votes on controversial bills backed by the Bush administration. In September of 2006, 31 Democratic representatives voted with the Republican majority in the House to pass The Military Commissions Act. The controversial act empowered Bush to designate individuals as "enemy combatants," and deny them certain legal rights. Twenty-three of the Democrats who supported the bill were Blue Dogs. At 10:20 PM on Saturday, August 4, 2007, with the help of 31 Blue Dogs, the House Republicans passed the Protect America Act, a bill that altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and weakened safeguards against domestic warrantless wiretapping. The bill, a replica of a proposal by the Bush administration, passed with a 44 vote margin, with 227 Yeas and 183 Nays. Despite comprising 76 percent of the Democratic support for the bill, communications director for the Blue Dogs, Kristen Hawn, said that the Blue Dog Coalition took no official position on the bill.

Despite the fracture among Democrats, Pelosi allowed the Republican bill to come to the floor for a vote. After it passed, she went on record saying that the bill "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."

So there you have it. The Democrats are going down in flames, and the Blue Dogs set the fire.

I wonder, once the Democratic party is dead and buried... will the dawgs trot over to the Republican side of the aisle and join their buddy Joe?

I'm sure Lieberman will be waiting for each of them with an affectionate pat on the head, a chewy bone, and plenty of 'attaboys' for their unflinching loyalty to the president.

Bushie accuses war protesters of 'not paying taxes'

Anti-war, pro-impeachment protesters heckled Nancy Pelosi as she attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony for some boring, federal building. (OK, it was a big, expensive building and an obvious delight to the Neocon hosting the event. Nice that it was at least energy efficient.)

About a dozen people chanted "Impeach now!" as Pelosi spoke at the dedication of the $144 million, 18-story landmark office complex, which boasts cutting-edge energy efficiency features. The demonstrators also unfurled a large "impeach" banner that directly faced Pelosi and other speakers.

The protesters - kept well away from the action - were nearly loud enough to drown out Madam Pelosi; but she of course ignored them (and believe me, we're all becoming used to that treatment -- aren't we Nancy?)

Then the Bushie Neocrat-in-charge had the temerity to accuse the protesters, relegated to the outskirts of the ceremony, of 'not being taxpayers' like the important people who had been invited to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Ah, the sneering disdain of the 'upper class.'

Pelosi ignored the protesters, who were loud enough to compete with her remarks, but not loud enough to drown her out. The event was held outdoors, with invited guests kept outside a police barricade but well within shouting distance.

However, a Bush administration official fired back at the demonstrators, accusing them of not paying taxes. Peter G. Stamison, appointed by President Bush as the General Services Administration's top official for the Pacific Rim region, acted as master of ceremonies.

"I think we all as taxpayers—those of us taxpayers, as opposed to you people back there—are the ones that make this work," Stamison said of the government efforts that brought the new building to life.

"Excuse me, I pay taxes!" a protester yelled.

Roll that truck back. Did I hear that right? A Bushie accusing anyone (who obviously isn't in the multi-billionaire club) of not paying taxes?

Get out!

Someone should give this guy the memo... the only people who get a pass from paying taxes these days are neocons and oil companies.

The rich get the tax-cutsies and the tax-breaksies. Everyone else pays the taxsies - everyone. Future generations should have lots and lots of taxsies, because this administration has plunged our nation into debt for generations; all while making a tidy profiteering haul (all taxsie-free!) from this bloody oil war.

We're paying for it. We paid for the right to protest it, buddy.

That comment really takes the cake - and the ribbon from the ceremony (which someone should wrap around that bone-head's mouth.) The most idiotic Bush-brain comment of the day... and it didn't even come from Bush!

$#%@& Stop spinning me!

Warning: This is a rant, and I've been writing it for days... although due to a planetary convergence (and the outrageous gall of our commander-guy,) I am posting it at the apex of my fury. Because I started it several days ago, you will be spared much of my current vitriol. Know that it is there.

I am no longer asking... I am demanding impeachment. I am not kidding.

Master of Destruction

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

Money for nothin

I keep receiving emails from the DCCC, asking for money.

This of course is no surprise; every day I am bombarded with requests for money from presidential candidates, environmental groups, independent progressive newsletters and advocacy campaigns. I try to support progressive candidates that I know will really step up and make a difference.

My trust in the Democratic Party, however, has worn quite thin. Quite thin indeed. The DCCC can get in line. The last few emails I've received illustrate perfectly the moral bankruptcy inherent in this money-based election system. Rather than governing, the party is focused only on the next election - a year and a half away.

Meanwhile, our democracy is falling apart before my eyes. Our morality as a nation - not RELIGION, but the basic morality of our grandfathers and ancestors who DID NOT TORTURE, honored HABEAS CORPUS, and who believed in THE RULE OF LAW, separation of church and state -- and simple REASON: all of this is disintegrating.

And the DCCC writes emails, singing about some upcoming election - shades of the emails I received less than a year ago, about another 'upcoming election' and how that one would rock my world.

Right. Tell that to some other sucker.

Perhaps I wouldn't mind as much - that the DCCC is already hanging around in my inbasket, daily begging for my money - if I could see that the Democrats really meant business: that they plan to clean up this disaster that once was our Federal Government.

But from what I heard in April - supposedly from Democrat staffers 'in the know' - they plan to investigate solely to draw attention to Bush and Cheney's mishandling of our government; then leave them untouched, so they can use these scandals to draw voters to the Democratic Party.

The reason we should all vote for Democrats? "Because we aren't as lousy as the neocons!"

Friday's DCCC email was supposedly from Rahm Emanuel, and entitled 'Dick Cheney':

According to Dick Cheney, everything we learned in school is wrong. Instead of three branches of government, there are now four – the legislative, the executive, the judicial, and Dick Cheney.

In an attempt to obstruct meaningful oversight and avoid being held accountable, the Vice President said he did not consider himself part of the executive branch.

We both know the power to hold Dick Cheney accountable belongs to Congress. Could you possibly think of a better reason to have a stronger Democratic Majority?

My reply?

"When you decide to actually use that power to 'hold Dick Cheney accountable' and file impeachment articles against him.... then I will donate."

In other words: We already GAVE you the majority you need to impeach. Now pay me what you owe me, by honoring your constitutional oaths of office, before you come back asking for money! (That, and give me a little time to get over my disappointment in your lack of performance after the last election... please...)

Stop spinning me! Damn it! I'm sick to death of this endless propaganda! I know what 'nothing' looks like - and you're giving me nothing!

The DCCC obviously thinks that I am really stupid (or they are hoping that I'm really stupid.) Because by the time Rahm's fellow congresscritters are elected, in theory, Dick will be out of office.

I say 'in theory' because of course, we cannot bank on that, can we? No, we cannot bank on that because no one will touch him, so it's really up to Dick whether he steps down... or not. Our Constitution has been thrown under the bus, and the Democratic majority is refusing to lift a finger to save it.

We daily read about amazing breaches of governmental law, accountability and Constitution, and still impeachment is "Off the table." That is so outrageous it is very nearly criminal.

Madam speaker, if I may respectfully remind you... you swore an oath to protect the Constitution! I intend to hold you to that oath, and I suspect a huge percentage of my fellow Americans concur.

For God's sake: FIND A TABLE!

Cheney is still in office; a very real, constant danger to our democracy and to the world. And in spite of their majority, the Democrats sit on their hands. They don't even use impeachment as a threat.

NO: I won't give you any more money for not representing me or honoring your oaths of office - sorry guys. I like some return on my investment. I'm sure the lobbyists got theirs, now I want mine.

I think what irritates me the most is that Rahm (or someone pretending to be Rahm) thinks he only has to mention the word 'Dick Cheney' and I will immediately pull out my checkbook - even though he doesn't plan to actually do anything about Dick Cheney and his rampant abuse of power. Is Dick Cheney now the DCCC's bestest-buddy fundraiser-helper? Say it isn't so!

Anyway - I refuse to play.

Saturday's email was entitled 'Bush's 15 million':

Midnight tonight is the deadline. We are just $65,000 away and just hours from our Million Dollar Challenge before the critical June 30th FEC deadline where we report our fundraising totals and the media and pundits will use them to judge our chances for success in 2008.

What the hell...? Now I am supposed you give you money because you are cowering about what the 'media pundits' will say?

Like hell!

You don't care about protecting the rule of law and democracy - you just want us to help keep the media off your backs. Could you not - perhaps - have taken a different tack, and requested our citizen contributions so that you wouldn't have to go crawling to big business for cash? I might have signed on for that, because then I would know you were truly accountable to me - the voter.

No - of course you didn't say that, because you plan to go crawling to big business anyway. You always do. And you represent them quite well, I might add. Tell them about Bush's millions. Don't bother me again until you plan to represent me.

It's this poll thing - this fear of the bully media, that motives you guys, not the interests of your base. The media is now nothing more than a giant, corporate bully club; used by corporations and their lobbyists to beat you, intimidate you, and keep you all in line. And of course, to keep you from actually doing anything on my behalf.

Sorry, I won't play.

No free lunch

I don't give a flying @&$*% what the media pundits say. Because you don't give a flying @(*$*% what I am saying right now. Damn it: FIX MY GOVERNMENT. Fix it right now, and get your eyes off the damn 2008 calendar. We just elected you!

Imagine if an employee was hired on the basis of his willingness to do a job, and several months later - after doing absolutely no productive work, including the job he was hired to do (get us out of Iraq) - came asking for a raise. He'd be tossed right out of the employer's office, and most likely find himself in the unemployment line. Think about that.

The future is promised to no one... and that is especially true right now. How do you know we won't be at war with Iran in 2008? You're taking a huge chance with our freedom, and with the safety of the world. These guys won't even take nukes off the table. Imagine what their hero Reagan would think of that... he'd think they are madmen.

You couldn't even do the one thing that we absolutely demanded you accomplish: get our troops out of Iraq. You couldn't manage to exercise your budget oversight and cut the gravy train - which was your job, not some scary option - and you did nothing to demand your lawful oversight for any planned attacks on Iran. Oh some smart progressives that we sent to Washington suggested this, but you wouldn't have it.

You totally caved.

And sure, Bush was going to say 'no' anyway. We all knew this. You could at least have stood your ground, don't you think? Once again, you were worried about what he would say about you, while you were out of town and on vacation.

Did you give UP your vacation to do the right thing? HELL NO.

Terrific representation and dedication to country! We have people dying for us in Iraq and Afghanistan - sent there by you - and you couldn't even give up your Memorial Day on their behalf? What a sick way to honor their sacrifices.

This president has one of the lowest approval ratings in history, and is breaking laws and issuing signing statements at a rate that puts Nixon to shame -- and you refuse to hold him accountable. Oh sure you are investigating... but to what end? Simply to win an election that is over a year away? What about responsibility for the future - setting a precedent that should have been set with Nixon? Yes, that national nightmare is back! That you refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney for behaving worse than Nixon... is mind-boggling to me.

Cheney is outright lawless... and you won't even support one of your own, Dennis Kucinich, who had the courage to move forward with impeachment seemingly on his own. Brave Dennis, the people's champion. He must drive you crazy. Always whipping out that Constitution. Well let me tell you -- I'd take an entire Congress full of Dennises right now! A Congress full of Dennises and a Senate full of Russes. That might do the trick.

Even angry Republicans are supporting you, hoping and praying that you would reign in their own party - and still you fold, repeatedly, like a cheap suit!

Last night at the Giant's game, as the National Anthem began some unidentified people unfurled a banner about 14 feet long and 5 feet high that simply said IMPEACH. They were up in the walkway above the bleachers so the majority of the fans could have seen it, though it would have been easy enough to miss.

Within a minute, stadium people were on the scene and the banner was taken down. I took a picture on my camera phone which isn’t great, but good enough.

Frankly you're worth neither my vote or my money without action.

As they say in business - and this is something you should understand: it's all about results. I'll pay you when I see a return on my last investment.

Right now, I'm losing - and losing big. I'm losing my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, my country's troops are still in Iraq, my Federal agencies of oversight have all been outsourced, my food - and my pets' food - is tainted, my planet is heating up, our jobs have been outsourced, our Federal coffers are being looted (and that's my Social Security money you're blowing, or should I say 'handing off to Halliburton.')

Leahy, Feingold, Conyers and Waxman are the exceptions to your party capitulation, along with a handful of other progressives that you label 'fringe' because they actually get it. Dennis Kucinich is an American hero. And do you intend to back them as they deal with this 'larger-than-Watergate' scandal in the Executive Branch?

All over the world, people are watching you... watching us. Watching this once great democracy, and beacon of freedom for the world flounder around like a gutted carp in a row boat. They are waiting to see what YOU WILL DO:

Vice-President Dick Cheney was personally responsible for American policies that subjected terrorist suspects to cruelty and denied them the right to a fair trial, according to revelations from senior US government officials.

The details have laid bare more than ever before the remarkable influence of Mr Cheney in shaping the prosecution of the war on terror which led to the scandals at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

You wring your hands and you cower - and secretly you think you can just leave Bush and Cheney there to draw our ire so that we will magically re-elect you with an even greater majority - all for doing NOTHING. You haven't even reigned in the war profiteers, and you gutted your own oil-gouging legislation. And you wonder why you're polling so low? You're polling low because you have betrayed us!

That dog won't hunt

My own 'Blue Dog' representative is a total disgrace; simply a lump in the system, clogging up the workings of democracy. He's not a Republican - and he certainly isn't a Democrat. He's a lump. Slightly better than a Joe Lieberman, and slightly better than the Republican he replaced. But that's about all.

That dog won't hunt; and both the DCCC and Moveon.org actually asked me to spend hours calling voters on his behalf, insisting he was part of this 'great and glorious Democratic majority' that would change the world (or at least reign in the Bush Administration.)

I'm quite sure - especially given the letter I received from him concerning impeachment of Dick Cheney - that he is one of the reasons impeachment is 'off the table.' He doesn't want to 'rile his Republican friends.' I'd recall him for failure to honor his oath of office if I could. He is no representative of mine, and as far as I am concerned -- he is an oath-breaker!

I will give what little money I can spare to progressive candidates - even if they're other people's representatives, because I obviously can't get any decent representation of my own. I will give to the online, independent media that keeps me informed while the corporate media talks about Paris Hilton. I will support the environmental causes that are fighting to save the places that I love, and I will do whatever I can to make a difference with my money. But I no longer trust Moveon or the DCCC to spend it wisely.

If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. - Abraham Lincoln

A word of advice to this Democratic Majority: I'm not the only one that feels this way. You'd better wise up and start acting on those campaign promises - start defending our constitutional rights - or you're going to be very unhappy when the 2008 elections finally do roll around.

Paybacks are a mother.

All it will take is one credible Independent candidate... and people will start flocking to the banner. I know you think it can't be done, but you have completely misread the seriousness of this situation, and underestimated the wrath of the Democrat and Republican masses that feel entirely unrepresented out here.

We're pissed - no, we're MAD AS HELL - and we want results. We demand justice! This is a nation of law, of order. That goes from the 'lowliest citizen' to the highest official. No special favors, no double standard. With Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.

We want our Constitution protected, this Executive Branch reigned in and prosecuted for breaking the LAW, starting this ILLEGAL WAR, TORTURING PEOPLE and TAKING THEM HOSTAGE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, and destroying everything this country once represented around the world... and yes, we want our government back.

WE THE PEOPLE. You may have forgotten, but I'll be damned if we have.

Oh... and if you do impeach these monsters? If you do come through for us? I'll personally walk all the way from Indiana to Washington D.C. and bring you cookies. Seriously. It will be well worth it.

Meet me at camera 3

"Congress has abdicated its duty..."

"...the leadership of the Democratic Party wrote Chapter One of “Profiles In Cowardice”...

"Unlike our Democratic leaders, I am a Democrat who has backbone and conviction. I am hereby defunding YOU!"

"Any compromise that funds the war through the end of the fiscal year isn't a compromise at all, it's a capitulation..."

"Democrats cave in to Bush..."

Wow. You guys have really made a mess of this. I mean... really.

Hey Nancy, Harry -- as Jon would say (if he were here; he's on vacation) -- meet me at camera 3.

(Jon - buddy - I'm in withdrawal.)

[Camera 3]

Look, I know what you're dealing with here. Its painfully obvious.

Bush and Cheney and their entire pack of necons are bullies, plain and simple. They're knocking you down, taking your lunch money and threatening to beat the crap out of you. You're obviously afraid of them. Let me give you a tip, something I learned in elementary school when these rich, entitled thugs went after me.

Bullies respond to one thing, and one thing only: courage. You don't have to be physically stronger than they are, but you can stand there and take it, stare straight ahead and refuse to flinch. Or better still, you can stare them down. You can show them that you aren't afraid. This will worry them, and win you many friends and allies. Its the last thing they want, believe me. All you have to do is call their bluff.

You see, they know their best and only tactic for getting what they want is to throw their weight around. I'm not sure why, exactly. Perhaps they saw their parents pushing people around, or maybe they were ignored at home. I never really thought about it as a kid; I was too busy trying to survive.

One thing I did eventually figure out. That swagger is all bluff.

Honestly, I swear - they seem to be afraid of everything.

They're afraid that you are smarter than they are. They're afraid that you will 'win' and they will 'lose.' They're afraid that a group of you will somehow overpower them. They're afraid that you are all talking about them behind their backs. They're afraid that you are not talking about them behind their backs. They're afraid you're better than they are. They're convinced that everyone likes you better, respects you more; and they think everything is a dog-eat-dog competition.

Sometimes they just assume that because you're smart, or have less money, you're 'weak' (I'm pretty sure their parents taught them that one - it seems to be an inherited mindset.)

And when they break the rules (as they invariably do,) they're afraid that you will rat on them and turn them in. Bullies know they have no real friends.

And so to compensate for whatever the hell they're missing, they build themselves up by knocking other people down. If that doesn't work - believe me - they back right down. They can't afford to let anyone see them fail.

Another good defense against bullies is humor. They have absolutely no idea what to do with humor, and of course, they're secretly afraid that everyone is laughing at them anyway.

Did you see Stephen Colbert take it to the president and the media corps at the White House correspondents dinner last year? Boy did he nail them! Little Stevie Colbert... a skinny guy with glasses!

That video ripped through the internet like wildfire, and do you know why? Because Stephen Colbert was 'everyman' -- every one of us who was ever bullied by these smug, self-righteous thugs. He stood up and he nailed them by God; he spoke the terrible truth and called them out, right to their faces.

And he was funny! What could they do?

You have power to stop this war, you're just afraid to use it. You're letting them tell you what you can and cannot do, and guys... you can't do that anymore. Time to suck it up.

Never EVER apologize or capitulate. You are Congress. You are an equal branch of our government, and you represent all of us out here. And by the way -- you're supposed to be setting the war strategy, controlling troop levels and determining withdrawal dates. Its your job. You can't let some swaggering bully take your job away from you.

You're still afraid they're going to knock you down and take your gum drops, aren't you? Yeah. It shows.

My guess is that you (like so many of us) were pushed around when you were kids. That's OK, we understand that. But its not to late to learn the 'lesson of the bully.'

The way to win this fight is to stand there quietly, confidently, stare them down -- and refuse to give in. When they say something really stupid, laugh. Its OK - God knows we're all laughing. Feel free to join us.

Never apologize for being real. Remember, confidence and strength worries them. That's the reason they attack you. Attacks are a good sign that you're winning (just ask Michael Moore.) If you're under attack, that's definitely no time to back down. Laugh, ride it out, let everyone see their taunts aren't bothering you at all. Give it right back to them.

When you're feeling like Neville Chamberlain, pretend you're Winston Churchill. Never give up, never surrender. You are confident and you are right. That's how you win. That's how you beat a bully.

You have the moral high ground, and the responsibility to end this war. Use it.

Oh and by the way: an entire nation of angry people is lining up behind you. We were bullied too.

Congress, Impeachment and the "Black Hole"

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am simply an American citizen.

Because I am outraged by the outright refusal of congressional Democrats to bring impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney, even amid mounting evidence of treason and high crimes, I have done quite a bit of digging.

A lawyer would be a much better at this... but as a citizen, I have the right to expect action and I believe I have a personal duty to my own democracy. Quite a number of reputable lawyers have already laid the groundwork for impeachment. What is needed now from Congress is the will to proceed: on behalf of our nation and our very democracy.

By refusing to put impeachment on the table - and if it is indeed true that Democratic leaders are willfully advancing the partisan agenda of keeping Bush and Cheney around as a 'punching bag for Democratic candidates' - congressional leaders are ignoring a myriad of critical consequences, and playing partisan, political games with lives and with our very democracy.

An argument could also be made that they are breaking their oaths to 'protect and serve the Constitution of the United States,' which has been directly undermined by the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens without their knowledge:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not only has the Democratic majority taken ownership of the Iraq war and its consequences when it was in fact holding all of the cards, but Pelosi's refusal to allow the impeachment process to commence has also made this Democratic majority complicit in any future bombing of Iran, any further erosions of our Constitutional protections, and any lasting damage to our planet due to our refusal to take immediate action to curb carbon emissions.

In the face of an outraged country, and accusations of betrayal from the very people who elected them, the only answer seems to be this lame excuse from some nameless Democratic aide:

"No American troop will go without … just so the most liberal activists in the country can be quieted," said a senior House Democratic aide. "If it means Democrats in Congress get tea bags and hate mail, so be it - we will not be irresponsible with the lives of our troops."

Ah yes, the 'we can't leave our guys out there, throwing bullets at Al Qaeda' argument again. "Our hands were tied."

Believe me, this may fly with those who haven't learned how the system works, but it is a lie. The Democrats have the power of the purse - the power to end the war. They chose not to use it. They had Bush on the ropes, but they chose to let him go. And now the war will drag on forever -- or until the GOP base finally revolts and Bush backs down from the people who will stand up to him: his own party.

Once again, and so predictably, the Democrats were 'afraid' of what the GOP would say about them, forever locked in the victim mindset. Just look at Harry Reid... and then Dick Cheney, and tell me honestly: who is the bully, and who is the skinny little kid with glasses? Does Cheney take Harry's milk money too, or simply beat him up on the way home from school?

If you see a crime being committed and you refuse to take any action, you are complicit. You are obstructing justice and betraying the public trust. I believe a case could be made that congressional Democrats' unwillingness to take action when faced with mounting evidence of executive lawlessness, and with the very real danger that we could fall into a dictatorship with little or no warning, is in and of itself 'treasonous.' It is also obstruction of justice.

Both are impeachable offenses.

Are these fighting words? You betcha. There are very real consequences for inaction. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Any elected official in our government can be impeached, and impeachment charges have been brought against 16 officials in our history as a nation:

Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.

Impeachment is the process by which any civil officer can be removed from office: for treason, bribery, or other 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

As stated in our Constitution:

Article. II.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

We have never - in our entire history - actually removed a president from office via the impeachment process. Impeachment is not (as many believe) an outcome, but rather a process - a trial - that leads to a final outcome of either conviction, or acquittal. The process is an investigation into apparent unconstitutional and criminal behavior; with charges filed by the House, and the case tried in the Senate with the Supreme Court acting as the judges.

For the purpose of comparison, the actual impeachment of Bill Clinton proceeded as follows:

The infamous "Starr Report" outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998, and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.

Even with a Republican majority, Clinton wasn't actually convicted.

Compared with the case against Bill Clinton, the charges leveled against Richard Nixon were much more serious -- and this undoubtedly led to his resignation before the impeachment process began. It was the threat of impeachment (and the dirt that would be uncovered in the process) that led to Nixon's resignation... not impeachment itself. Nixon was never convicted, although many people now believe he would have been found guilty due to the seriousness of the evidence against him.

Charges against Bush and Cheney are remarkable in their similarity to those leveled against Nixon:

After five men hired by Nixon's reelection committee were caught burglarizing Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. "In all of this," the Articles of Impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974. The Articles of Impeachment, which can be viewed at http://watergate.info/, leave no doubt that these charges qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," justifying impeachment.

The precedent has been established.

What congressional leaders don't want the average American to know, is that the House doesn't have to prove its case in advance before bringing the charges and starting the impeachment process. Dennis Kucinich has already filed impeachment papers against Cheney. Many are now calling for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, because he lied under oath and deliberately obstructed justice. Somehow, the Democrats can't even pull that one off.

This raises a very serious question: why are the Democrats so afraid to act?

Impeachment would kick off a very thorough and public investigation -- something that is much needed if we are to protect our democracy. Some question whether powerful Democrats in leadership positions are compromised by lobbyist ties, and thus fear that they may be caught in their own investigative net. Of course, this has everything to do with partisan politics, and their chances in the 2008 election.

Without this as a possibility, their actions are truly implausible. Pelosi won't say why she won't allow impeachment 'on the table.' We are left to speculate and question on our own.

Democrats have already managed to clutch an enormous moral defeat from the jaws of victory with their refusal to force Bush into accepting a timetable in Iraq. They have alienated not only the many independent and even Republican voters that backed them in the 2006 elections -- but they are now losing their own base as well:

The number of Americans who identify themselves as independent voters is on the rise. According to an average of CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls, this year, 42 percent of Americans now consider themselves to be independent.

Thirty-three percent identify themselves as Democrats. Twenty- five percent now say they are Republicans.

Why on earth would the Democrats implode like this - and apparently doom their own 2008 election hopes - while claiming that they are in fact trying to protect them?

In a terrific commentary titled 'Cowering In The Suburbs of Berlin,' David Michael Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York, rails against the apparent implosion of Democratic leadership when dealing with the Iraq war:

What choices remain for Americans today? They have an administration which they despise, enacting policies they loathe. So they did what the good citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, they went out in large numbers and voted in a new government. We should make no mistake about what the landslide election of 2006 meant. Democrats had no agenda to put forth and were not chosen for the purpose of advancing any such non-agenda. They had one qualification going into last November’s contest, and it was the one which got them elected: They were the non-Republicans, the non-regressives. Their singular mandate was to curb the excesses of the insane kleptocracy which, by all manner of nefarious techniques, had seized control of the American democracy and was taking every step imaginable to destroy it.

So what did the Democrats do? They immediately put impeachment off the table. We should understand clearly what that meant. By doing this, the Democratic leadership was saying that no matter what crimes might be uncovered, their sense of political expediency in serving their own personal interests would come before those of the country they were paid to be serving instead.

Next, they have demonstrated the depth of their impotence by refusing to impeach Alberto Gonzales, despite the fact that his transgressions - which now manifestly also include perjury and obstruction of justice - are as obvious as they are deep, and despite that these crimes involve the Justice Department, a part of the federal government that is supposed to be most insulated from Rove style politics. Instead of impeachment we’re to be treated to a Senate vote of no confidence. Golly, that’s bold. Knowing that nice man in the White House as I do, I’m sure that will compel him to do the right thing about this darned vexing situation!

What’s most astonishing about the whole affair is that Democrats still haven’t awakened to the fact that the core thrust of the entire scandal was yet another scheme to steal elections from them. Why don’t they just get it over with and form the Caspar Milquetoast Society for the Slow Suicide of Superfluous Political Parties? Just as in the case of the elections of 2000 and 2004, these guys don’t even put up a fight when it comes to the one issue you’d think even such self-serving sycophants might actually care about, namely, keeping their jobs.

It’s absurd and it’s tragic that the Democrats will not touch Bush, Cheney or Gonzales, but this week’s caving on funding for the Iraq war is in a league by itself. When they took over Congress, these guys had just one thing they needed to get right. They didn’t. They had a moral responsibility to end a war which they’ve long known, and which Harry Reid has even publicly admitted, is lost. They wouldn’t. They had virtually all the right political conditions in their favor, from a public mandate to a despised president for a political opponent. Still, they couldn’t.

And why exactly were their hands so very tied when they had the mandate of the American people and held the power of the purse?

Lobbyists.

Are the lobbying groups and the corporate behemoths they represent now so powerful, and our representatives so compromised by lobbyist ties, that Democratic leaders (along with their GOP counterparts) are nothing more than puppets serving a corporate master? Did the master in fact lay down the law and refuse to allow any impeachment process to take place?

Something stinks here.

It is impossible to know the true extent of congressional complicity while Congress continues to refuse impeachment... and the only branch capable of bringing impeachment charges against this president and vice president is our Congress itself. In spite of a mandate by the people and a whopping House majority, the Democratic Congress refuses to even discuss impeachment. This speaks volumes.

None of this is really new:

Since President McKinley and the Spanish-American War, overseas adventures have been the oligarchy’s response to the public’s demand for reform. Whether it was Populists or Progressives, rank-and-file Republicans or Democrats leading the charge for domestic change, the major party bosses and their partners on Wall Street have worked together in “collusive harmony,” in the words of political historian Walter Karp, to divert the country from its just demands by embroiling them in deadly foreign entanglements.

Reform movements are an ever-present worry for both parties’ bosses, because any successful reform put forward by regular citizens and insurgents in Congress tends to excite the electorate with the possibility of actually controlling their own government. The ruling class well understands that as the engagement of the citizenry waxes, their own power wanes. And it is war and the threat of war that provide the best excuse for not passing social-welfare legislation, and calling anyone who demands it “unpatriotic.”

It is obvious how we got here: corporate interests. Oil. The lucrative 'war contracting' business, and the Military Industrial.

The system 'of the people, by the people and for the people' has been compromised by money interests, and Lincoln's great fear has come to pass: corporations have been enthroned. These corporations have no intention of giving up the power they have gained under this administration. Their best guarantee of continuing the gravy train is by 'buying' representatives from both sides of the political aisle, possibly blackmailing them, and effectively undercutting efforts to fix the system from the outside.

It is working beautifully, I might add.

We have the right to demand an investigation. The question now is how to overcome our current 'rulers;' the ones we can see, and the ones behind the scenes.

I call these behind the scenes manipulators the 'black hole.' We can tell something is there, even if we can't quite see it. We can 'see it' by the uniform pull it manifests on all surrounding 'objects', which include the three branches of our Federal government and our media. Someone or some organization is quietly pulling strings, and the marionettes are all dancing their complex choreography to a tune we citizens cannot hear. Its no wonder we are confused and dismayed.

If 70 cities, 11 state legislatures, numerous state Democratic parties and hundreds of thousands of average citizen voters (this is unprecedented in our history) are pressuring Congress to impeach, and credible legal minds have listed impeachable offenses and laid out a prosecution groundwork... well gosh, there might actually be a FIRE somewhere under all of this smoke:

More than 70 cities and 14 state Democratic parties have urged impeachment or investigations that could lead to impeachment. The most common charge is that Bush manipulated intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war. Other charges include spying on Americans and torturing suspected terrorists in violation of U.S. and international law.

Most recently, the Massachusetts Democratic Party voted to push impeachment of both men. The 2,500 state convention delegates voted almost unanimously against Cheney; the vote against Bush was closer.

Massachusetts' Democratic Party thus joined 13 others on the investigate-or-impeach bandwagon, including: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Among the cities and towns, the largest and most recent is Detroit, where the city council voted 7-0 this month to urge Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney for "intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify the war."

The probability that Bush would be impeached by a two-thirds vote in the current, partisan Senate seems remote, but the point is to bring due process anyway, force White House compliance, and get to the bottom of these charges. Let the democratic process work. We the people are the rightful owners of our government in a democracy, and as such we have the right to know what crimes have been committed by our elected officials.

A few days ago I read a story explaining why the Democratic party doesn't want to impeach.

The writer states that Democratic leadership won't consider impeachment because they believe that allowing Bush and Cheney to stay in office will actually help their party's chances in the 2008 election. I strongly disagree. The longer the Democrats refuse to act, the greater the likelihood that the American people will decide that Democrats are weak, capitulating windbags without any teeth.

The story begins by describing apparent worries within the Democratic leadership that there just 'isn't enough proof' to bring impeachment charges, and fears that there will somehow be a political backlash - among the people, rather than the obvious objectors, the corporate lobbyists.

According to the article, there are three "policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base:"

Some don't see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors." They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they haven't yet.

Let's debunk that one right now.

There are are now countless volumes of legal arguments, written by experienced and brilliant legal minds - all laying out the framework for impeachment.

Any activity that deliberately undercuts the Constitution is both a 'high crime' and treasonous. The president and vice president both took an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of their swearing in process. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales -- all swore the oath. Any direct action they have taken against the wording of our Constitution is grounds for impeachment.

Impeachable offenses include:

1. Outing Valarie Plame, a verified covert CIA agent. Felony offense, high crime.
2. Lying to Congress and to the American people, with the intent of invading a foreign, sovereign nation. High crime, possible war crime, and treason.
3. Misrepresenting information provided by the CIA. Obstruction of justice, high crime.
   
4. Illegal rendition. High crime, possible war crime.
5. Refusing to turn over evidence such as emails. Obstruction of justice
6. Using outside email accounts for White House correspondence. Obstruction of justice, violation of the Hatch Act.
7. Destroying logs of official visitors to Cheney's residence to avoid having them entered into the Presidential record. Obstruction of justice, abuse of power.
   
8. Holding prisoners without due process. High crime.
9. Secret torture camps. High crime, potentially war crime.
10. Promoting CIA torture practices. High crime, possibly war crime.
11. Tampering with election outcomes. Felony, high crime, treason.

But the biggest case for impeachment, according to most legal scholars, is the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. This can arguably be considered both a high crime and treason.

Even Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

Elizabeth De la Vega, a 20-year federal prosecutor has probably laid out the best legal case for impeachment in her book "United States V. George W. Bush et al." This is a brilliant and well crafted legal analysis, and there are many others.

Here are a few of the better ones:

1. The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff


2. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, from The Center for Constitutional Rights


3. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney, by Dennis Loo


4. George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying, by John Conyers Jr.


5. The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman

The Democrats are either remarkably illiterate when it comes to the impeachment process, or are pretending to be ignorant in the hope that the American people will believe that they are helpless, none of this is their problem, and that impeachment is a waste of time.

I have also heard them say that they would rather concentrate on the real issues (issues? You mean like getting our troops out of Iraq?) They would like everyone to believe impeachment isn't viable. And as always, Democratic leaders are acting out of fear of GOP reprisals, rather than from a strong and forceful position of principle and moral strength.

Americans want strong leadership. The Democrats are in the drivers' seat and in the perfect position to show that they are strong and moral leaders. Instead, they seem determined to prove that they are weak and afraid. I cannot see how this can possibly be successful.

The second reason for not impeaching Bush and Cheney is that the Democratic leadership apparently fears...

a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush.

Backlash? From the voters? Hardly.

There apparently wasn't enough 'backlash' against the GOP after their impeachment of Bill Clinton to keep George W. Bush out of the White House in 2000.

In spite of our collective distaste for the GOP's hatchet job on Clinton, the Monica debacle did affect the campaign of then Vice President, Al Gore. It was the invisible albatross around his neck throughout the entire campaign -- his unfortunate association with a President embroiled in a 'sex scandal'.

There was absolutely no backlash against the GOP at all -- none -- although God knows there should have been. The media should have led the charge against this ridiculous charade and mockery of the impeachment process, but of course they were delighted by the sensationalism, and wallowed in the muck. Coverage of the Clinton impeachment was decidedly x-rated. I found it remarkable that a party so anti-sex and loudly 'pro-Christian, family values' could leak and publish documents so explicitly sexual in nature that parents were forced to keep their kids away from newspapers.

If the GOP could negatively affect Gore's campaign with a bogus impeachment trial against a very popular president -- how on earth could impeaching an extremely unpopular president with a 28% rating cause a backlash? This president started an entire war based on lies, undercut our Constitution protections and our Bill of Rights, spied on American citizens without a court order, leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent, completely dropped the ball after Katrina, gutted our EPA, our FDA, FEMA and other governmental oversight agencies, tampered with election results... how could prosecuting Bush and Cheney bring any sort of public outcry?

And don't confuse the will of the people with a backlash from the media. You know who they report to.

Defend us, already. Defend our Constitution. Hell, show a little patriotism!

If there will be a backlash, it will be the Democratic majority's failure to impeach when it became obvious that over 70% of Americans now believe this president is leading our government right off a cliff. Failure to impeach proves both weakness and capitulation. And perhaps something more sinister:

The third is that they're eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign.

Ah, here it is. This is all a partisan game. And if this is true, it is... profoundly and unforgivably immoral.

It is hard to believe that any person or party would put partisan gain ahead of lives, morality, justice, and the future of life on our planet. If the Democrats are truly motivated only by the 2008 horse race to the Presidency - how are they really any different or any better than Karl Rove? So much for holding the high ground.

Lack of action is action.

If Democratic leaders want to prove that Democrats aren't the cowering weaklings the GOP claims they are, they must do a lot better than this. It is time for them to muster some courage, face the neocon bullies and their corporate power brokers, and act on behalf of the nation. John Ashcroft managed it from a hospital bed... surely Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can reach deep and find a little patriotic fire and loyalty of their own.

It is time for the Democrats to take a strong and moral position against the crimes committed by this administration. Dedication to the rule of law will earn the respect of the people -- not capitulation. Strength and justice will earn success in 2008. We are not idiots out here. We know courage when we see it. We also recognize cowardice and betrayal.

On Martin Luther King Day in 2006, Al Gore gave a powerful speech about our collective obligation to protect our Constitution:

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.

Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law.

As John Adams said, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.

In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

If Congress doesn't take real action soon to impeach Bush and Cheney, there may not be much Constitution left to uphold -- and we will no longer be having this discussion. The future of our democracy can now turn on a dime, and entirely at 'the pleasure of the president.' At his own discretion and without any warning, the president can now declare martial law. Habeas corpus has already been taken away. Our liberty is in very real danger.

We're out of time, Nancy. I'm tired of calling your office. Everyone I know is tired of calling your office. We're tired of asking. Now we are telling you...

IMPEACH.