Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: IMPEACHMENT: Muldraker "Treason" Tag Answered and Dismissed By This Court As Extremist Right Wing Sophomoric Nonesense

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Monday, March 12, 2007

IMPEACHMENT: Muldraker "Treason" Tag Answered and Dismissed By This Court As Extremist Right Wing Sophomoric Nonesense

monday, March 12, 2007

In the matter of muldraker’s feeble attempt to justify the use of the word “treason”; this Court of Impeachment and War Crimes finds the accusation to lack foundation, rational support and constituting nothing more than the sophomoric “verbal lint” utterances of one seduced by the Neocon Fascist line of the extremist right.

In this man’s eye, the abuse of the word “TREASON” to impugn one’s integrity, or to call into question one’s motives, by implication, and attempts to sully one’s right to free candid and honest speech, will always be viewed as speech typical of those inclined to authoritarian Fascist-like rule as opposed to the purity of Democracy to which this writer is dedicated.

In essence, Ms. “muldraker” you are saying that that we all have a right to free speech, but, if you disagree with us, we are guilty of hiding behind the First Amendment and uttering words of Treason. That is simply not legally possible, and constitutes one of the shallowest rhetorical salvos available, loaded only with divisive polarizing emotional content that does not bring one wit of common sense or reasoning to a national dialog.

I have dealt with it before and those whose knee jerk position is that, whenever a nation goes to war, it becomes important, a responsibility, a duty, for everyone at home to rally behind the flag and support the nation's goals. That line of “reasoning” or argumentation cascades into a whole line of argument that climaxes with the infamous “I was only following orders!” Line that was rejected at the end of a hangman’s noose at Nuremberg.


We will spread our message in every way we can: with words, with our voices raised in song, and with our feet marching in the streets of america!





We believe that as people living in the United States it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government, in our names

Not in our name will you wage endless war there can be no more deaths no more transfusions of blood for oil

Not in our name will you invade countries bomb civilians, kill more children letting history take its course over the graves of the nameless

Not in our name will you erode the very freedoms you have claimed to fight for

Not by our hands will we supply weapons and funding for the annihilation of families on foreign soil

Not by our mouths will we let fear silence us

Not by our hearts will we allow whole peoples or countries to be deemed evil

Not by our will and Not in our name

We pledge resistance

We pledge alliance with those who have come under attack for voicing opposition to the war or for their religion or ethnicity

We pledge to make common cause with the people of the world to bring about justice,freedom and peace

Another world is possible and we pledge to make it real

The term protest music often conjures up images of unkempt folkies strumming guitars and warbling their dissent in Greenwich Village coffeehouses.

Folk music no longer dominates the genre. Today, rebellious political rhetoric can be found in hip-hop, punk, country, metal, alt-rock, and everything in between. Not only has protest music diversified, it seems to be rapidly on the rise.

Some of the new songs, unsurprisingly, address the war on Iraq. But whereas protest songs during the Vietnam era were broadly antiwar in their message, the new batch of political tunes aren't narrowly focused on the recent war. It's more personal than that. Most of the music is targeted at the actions and policies of one man: George W. Bush.

And it's often incendiary stuff.

"For better or worse, Bush has stirred up a lot of vitriol in the music community," says David Browne, head music critic for Entertainment Weekly. "There's always been protest songs against presidents, but they have never been near to the level of venom you're seeing now."

That isn't to say no songs are championing the administration's foreign policy - country music has produced hits such as Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue (The Angry American)." But they're being drowned out by the sheer volume of musicians working to oust the Oval Office's current occupant.

The musicians range from punk rockers to pop acts to older artists like Patti Smith and Rickie Lee Jones. In all, Mr. Browne reckons protest songs seem to have been more numerous in the past year and a half than in the late '60s. "There just wasn't that concentration of songs during the Vietnam War," he says.

Leading the charge in the current round of Bush-whacking is Fat Mike, frontman for the veteran punk rock group NOFX. Mike created the current Billboard-charting compilation entitled "Rock Against Bush," a collection of sneeringly rebellious punk rock songs including ones from mainstream acts like Sum 41, OffSpring, and the Ataris. Twenty-six bands offered songs for the compilation, and many more joined the tour that followed.

The idea for the album emerged from the controversy over the Florida vote count in the previous presidential election. The outcome still rankles Fat Mike, who believes the result was unjust.

"After the 2000 election I was pretty upset," says Mike. "I needed to come up with a way I could use my celebrity to expose the fraud of the election."

Mike also soon founded the provocative website, which aimed to harness the youth vote.

"Punk rockers have been against government policy from the start, but it's never been specific," asserts Mike. "This is the first time we've been focused on one thing - getting Bush out of office."

Toby Veg, organizer and cofounder of is amazed at the genre's outpouring of bile aimed at the president. "In one sense, the Bush administration has been great for punk music. I mean, how do you reconcile a genre based on anarchy? It really speaks to exactly how much punk musicians dislike Bush," says Veg.

It's not just the punk rockers who are turning to the microphone to assail the president. The Beastie Boys, legends of hip-hop, are releasing their long-awaited new recording, "To the 5 Boroughs," on June 15, and its lyrics are loaded with jabs at Bush. The personal nature of the current protest music is something of a modern phenomenon.

Alternative-rock heartthrobs and MTV darlings Incubus have offered up perhaps the most strident attack on the president with their latest single "Megalomaniac." The controversial video, which has now been relegated to the marginal hours by MTV, depicts a "Leave It To Beaver" family drinking crude oil instead of milk, and a smarmy, baby-kissing Bush look-alike, all shown in a graphic style eerily reminiscent of Nazi war propaganda.

You'd think that the hip-hop, punk, and hard rock bands would hand out the most spirited shots at the embattled president, but that has been left to the smooth, jazz-tinged tunes of singer Rickie Lee Jones. The songwriter felt that the music community was initially too quiet after the Patriot Act was passed.

"Everybody was afraid to speak out against him [Bush]," says Jones in a recent telephone call. "It was a very dangerous time. The atmosphere was very reminiscent of fascist Germany.... I've never been an activist, but I wanted to start doing something."

Jones makes no bones about her views about the president on her new compact disc "Evening of My Best Day." Despite its soft atmospherics, the opening tune off the track, "Ugly Man," may be the sharpest attack on a president to date, while the up-tempo bounce of "Tell Somebody (Repeal the Patriot Act Now)" is similarly self-explanatory in its rebellious intentions. Jones wants to be clear that what she is protesting is not the Iraq war, but the actions of George W. Bush. Asserts Jones, "Call it what it is! It's not a war, it's George Bush - the man wielding the weapon is the problem."


The message (Comment) left in response to one of my recent posts came as no surprise. Similar and I would add…very few, messages have been transmitted by direct Email as opposed to open posting. That I can say that the comment came as no surprise is a reflection of the fact that I have been the recipient of even worse expressions of disagreement with things that I have written or said as a Union Official, teacher, and campaigner from school levies to Presidential campaigns. (My The Message to all of those of this cast of mind continues to be)!

That I can say/write what I am about to with a feeling of equanimity is in part a function of perspective acquired with age and life experience.
Though, it is neither a complimentary observation, nor an acceptance on my part that such things are just human nature, I have witnessed citizens of this nation, during times of national stress, periods of political controversy, and in more recent times routine character assassination associated with politics in general, and negative political campaigns in particular, launch verbal assaults on one another in efforts to impugn character, motives and demonize either the message or messenger.

From the days of Joe McCarthy to issues of book censorship, abortion, gay rights, same sex marriage, religious issues, flag burning, Christmas displays, The Vietnam War…and the list could go on…and the ever popular: “our country, right or wrong, love it or leave it” mentality.

(McCarthy Insert: McCarthy Was Wrong) And so Are You!

Senator Joseph McCarthy has long been an embarrassment to the far right specifically and GOP generally. Because he serves as proof of the far right's very weak commitment to democratic principles (as they were perfectly willing to abandon them completely in order to garner power) and of a failure of courage on the part of the GOP (which was willing to turn a blind eye to his obvious corruptions as long as he was winning votes), he has long served as something they would just as soon didn't exist.

More recently, he has come to be even more of a problem, as he demonstrates what happens when you engage in the legal, political, and rhetorical maneuvers to which GOP political figures (especially Ashcroft), right-wing movements (like the ironically named Accuracy in Academia), and hate-mongering pundits (like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Horowitz) are committed.

They are witch hunts, and they depend upon demagoguery and hate-mongering, and that is what McCarthy did, and it was a disaster.
There are several ways that one can treat a figure like McCarthy--one might, for instance, learn from him that it is a logical contradiction with horrific consequences to think that one can protect democracy by subverting democratic principles like due process and free speech.

If, however, like Ashcroft, Bush, Coulter, et al, one is engaged in exactly that practice, then one is determined not to learn that lesson. The answer is to re-write history, and that is what the right is currently trying to do by claiming that McCarthy has been proven right.

This argument depends upon characterizing McCarthy's rhetoric and his critics' in two very specific ways. First, one has to transmogrify McCarthy's assertions and policies into something strikingly different from what they were.

Second, one has to reduce all criticism of McCarthy to an assertion made by a fringe part of a fringe part of what is misnamed "the left." That is, this argument runs, McCarthy was right because there really were communists. What this ignores is that McCarthy asserted much, much more than just that there were communists, that he was wrong in how he identified communists, what he thought should be done about them, and his basic strategies for dealing with Soviet spies.

It also ignores that, except for Stalinist stooges, his critics granted that there were communists. What they did not grant was that he was correctly identifying them, that his methods for fighting communism were helpful, nor that the situation merited abrogating basic constitutional principles.
And that is the point that defenders of McCarthy are trying to slide over. It is not simply that McCarthy said there were communist spies--which there were, but whom he did not name--but that he wanted to conflate two completely different categories of people: people who were engaged in something illegal (treason) and people who were engaged in something constitutionally protected (dissent).

I think at this point the “muldrakers” had best take a very careful look at their notions of what constitutes a proper exercise of free speech. There is a thin line of legality that tends to hinge on the conditions and times in which certain remarks are “tolerable” and others where they become litigable!

McCarthy (and his current defenders) try to claim that dissent is treason if it advocates overthrowing democracy. That is, not just the people who were spying for the Soviet Union, but also the people who openly advocated (or insinuated) the end of democracy were engaged in treason.

Because advocates of communism promoted a governmental system that denied due process and restricted freedom of speech, they were engaged in treason. But, McCarthy himself advocated the suspension of due process and restriction of free speech (as does Ashcroft).

The major criticism of McCarthy, and the one that the far right wants you to forget, is that this was treason on McCarthy's part.

You do not help democracy by ending it--whether you are a communist, or anti-communist, a terrorist, Fascist or the Attorney General.
Ms. “muldraker” comment falls into that last generic, the ever popular: “our country, right or wrong, love it or leave it” mentality category.
I am addressing this comment because it is posted for everyone to see, (and I intend to leave it that way), whereas some the Emails I have received are not available for all to read, and given the fact that some of them are even more ludicrous than this comment, and that is a good thing, and this short message serves as a good example of a fundamental problem we have in this nation.

Ms. “muldraker” makes the most simplistic sophomoric assumption that if one: stands up for peace, dares to speak out against the lies of a criminal President, desires to bring home our men and women from a failed war, wants to save the lives of our young men and women from needless deaths; that some how we are not supporting our country and our troops (“especially when our country is at war”).

I am weary of that Rumsfeldian Bush administration “bunker mentality”, blind sycophant flock-minded administration sock puppet parroting! The shepherds are liars and the flock is blindly marching into the slaughter house abyss, singing bush tunes.

Those who differ and dare to think and disagree with this most corrupt and corrosive of administrations believe that Patriotism is not blind devotion, and that “Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism.

A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience…”—Rocky Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City

This guy ought to write to “Mr. Shut Up” Bill O’Reilly a major advocate of the shut up and follow mentality, and while he is at it he might consider a letter to the America’s leading air head voice of unreason, Ann Coulter who brings a new meaning to the term “Blonde Bimbo”!

This was in response to Rumsfeld’s speech in that same city equating dissent with appeasing the Nazi’s. To understand the context, Salt Lake City is the capital and largest city in the state of Utah which is the most pro-Bush state in the union and one of the few places where he still enjoys a positive approval rating.

There are a number of great quotes from that commentary:
“Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom…It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile, it is right—and the power to which it speaks, is wrong…

That about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy.”—Keith Olbermann, Countdown

But, let us return to the comment content!
IMPEACHMENT: and peace: March On The Pentagon Marc...comments:
muldraker said...

“While I agree with everyone that we have the right to protest and to organize a march, I also believe that as American citizens, we also all have the responsibility to support our country and to support our troops, especially when our country is at war.

In the days of our founding fathers, to do otherwise would have been considered an act of treason.

For many of us, it still is just that.

That is why 1,000's and 1,000's of veterans and civilians who support our vets, will also be 'near' the wall on March 17th.We will be there to protect the wall from those protesters who choose to deface memorials, if any are among those marching on the Pentagon.

We will be there also to let the country and the world know, that you do not speak for all of us. You never have and you never will.

Check out to see what our mission is all about.

Treason is Treason No Matter How You Try To Hide Behind Your First Amendment Right.

In essence, Ms. “muldraker” you are saying that that we all have a right to free speech, but, if you disagree with us, we are guilty of hiding behind the First Amendment and uttering words of Treason. That is simply not legally possible, and constitutes one of the shallowest rhetorical salvos available, loaded only with divisive polarizing emotional content that does not bring one wit of common sense or reasoning to a national dialog.

I have dealt with it before and those whose knee jerk position is that, whenever a nation goes to war, it becomes important, a responsibility, a duty, for everyone at home to rally behind the flag and support the nation's goals. That line of “reasoning” or argumentation cascades into a whole line of argument that climaxes with the infamous “I was only following orders!” line that was rejected at the end of a hangman’s noose at Nuremberg.

Or is it? Consider a few simple questions please.

What if the nation's goals are immoral, or if the nation went to war under false pretenses? This doesn't always seem to matter to radical Neocon duped nationalists: they accuse dissenters of treason regardless of how reasonable, sincere or well founded in fact and law their dissent is.

The problem with that position at the moment is that it offers aid, comfort and support to criminals and the culture of corruption nurtured on Pennsylvania Avenue, and people who speak before they think become unwitting accomplices to the criminality of this administration, an administration that has gone so far as to seek legislation that will protect/immunize themselves from Civil Prosecution and liability under International Law.

They know they are guilty, and so do you!

The issues I raise as regarding preserving the lives of our soldiers in Iraq from useless deaths and maiming, calling an end to an “illegal War”, calling an end to a war that began with the great TV Theater of “Shock and Awe” that destroyed much, accomplished little and squandered billions of dollars, calling for Americans to exercise every right secured for them by such treasonous fellows as Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton among others, are serious issues that impact the reputation of and the future survival of our democracy as we know it. I reference my position and exercise of free speech in the following quote.

In the first “Letters To A German Friend”, Albert Camus wrote: “No, I didn’t love my country, if pointing out what is unjust in what we love amounts to not loving, if insisting that what we love should measure up to the finest image we have of her amounts to not loving.”

When, as now, pointing out injustice and appealing to hope is labeled as treasonous, the pendulum has come to rest at the Fascist end of the arc.
Our country has been manipulated in a perilous drift away from democracy as we know it by those who believe the wealthy should rule and that the masses need to be more closely managed and herded in some new American model of Fascism.

Don’t go getting excited and jumping up and down over the term, as it like many others is subject to interpretation and tailored definition by those who would exercise more dictatorial rule by manipulating the most available and vulnerable hot buttons in our society.

It does not mean Nazism or Italy’s Mussolini Fascism. Those who cling immediately to those references without examination are again given to advocacy by emotion, not reason. For contemporary Americans, however, "it" could signify our own more gradual and insidious turn toward authoritarian rule.

One of the most vulnerable and volatile components of our present day society that has been manipulated, employed to enlist a flock is religion. This is not new ground; as such manipulation has been present in other Fascist undertakings around the globe.

The cross has been fashioned on the anvil of political manipulation into a sword to be deployed as a weapon in an internal social, culture clash war of deflection and deceptions. Blood has always been spilled in the name of God and every manifestation of oppression known to man has been imposed in the name of God in the pages of human history.

In every instance the cross turned sword, and the legions sent forth on some “Holy Mission” have marched into the blood letting to evade the solutions of more worthy challenges.

If religion has any value it should be that of uniting humanity in a common community of understanding, toleration and embrace. The Cross, The Bible, The Koran and all symbols and sources of faith should be tools of unity and peace, not weapons of division and bloodshed.

But when man is impoverished of food and hope, self worth, immersed in the pains of loneliness, despair, futility, impotence an unimportance, as personal sense of irrelevance, he grasps for anything that gives him a sense of meaningfulness, a sense of purpose, a sense of place and being, even if it is the most negative and perverted expression of truth and goodness gone corrupted and corrosive; lies become accepted truth.

It is bad enough that in the evolution of species, our development has from time to time given rise to circumstances that spawn such tragic aberrations, but it is unforgivable when the conditions for yet another season of unreason are the product of premeditated man made circumstances, fashioned to satisfy personal whims and agendas at the expense of the unaware masses quickly ensnared in the net of deception and marched across life’s stage as puppets of the evil masters, and they are admittedly evil, through and through.

Our nation is desperate need of a serious introspective examination. There are so many divisive forces in active play. They are not only tearing at our societal fabric but like the smoke accompanying a raging fire they are obscuring the root source causes and pathways to resolution. The fires of division rage on and those pouring on the accelerants are escaping necessary exposure. So many, in particular a co-opted conforming media, have become unwitting accomplices to those dedicated to a dictatorial control of the American nation.

The threat is that serious and that simple of definition. Do we really believe that the whole hosts of ills that confront us as a matter of coincidence.

Do we believe that the cultural, racial, economic, educational and political divides surrounding us have converged simultaneously by historical accident?

Do I assert that there is some great conspiracy afoot with a master plan for disassembling our democratic institutions?

No, that would be a grandiose inaccuracy, but there are conspiratorial forces at work whose agendas, perhaps more limited in design at the moment, that are in their successes contributing to growing infections that, if not stamped out, will eventually disease the body politic into a sufficiently comatose state, that those individuals and organizations will be able to accomplish a power grab that is currently only their dream, their ultimate fantasy.

Are the phenomenon of political character assassination and predictable political campaign tactics mere natural evolutions in our system? Hardly; and we are all well aware the techniques of negative campaigning, yet America continues to knowingly dine and digest with some degree of relish, the poison fruits served up in our obscenely expensive political feasts.

There is something wrong with that, clearly in need of examination and explanation. It is not a simple as one might be knee jerk response inclined to attribute to the gullibility of the American public. If that be the symptom; what is the underlying root rot that has given rise to the malady?

With what kind of pride do we announce to the world that we are a: Homophobic, Xenophobic, Racially Bigoted, Religiously Intolerant, Revenge Crazed, Blood thirsty, Execution loving, Arrogant, Insensitive to our needy, Mercenary to a fault nation?

How do we explain to the world, (and the inherent problem here is we feel no obligation to explain to anyone, anything as a nation) that we can ignore the problems and afflictions of the young, the old, the mentally challenged, the mentally ill, those who are impoverished, the homeless sleeping in our streets, the growing number of suicides, a health care health insurance system out classed by some near third world nations?

How do we justify to the world sending our youth off to die in war after war worthy of Hague prosecution, praising them as patriots while they weapon in hand, only to have them have to wage war at home for their benefits and adequate medical treatment of their ravaged minds and bodies in civilian life?

How do we justify the return of our soldiers home to jobs no longer theirs, to the ruination of their families and their entry into the ranks of the homeless on our streets?

How do we do this?

How can we believe; how can we tolerate a President who professes to support and honor our troops loyalty and their sacrifices, and then withdraws from their support here at home…how, how, how?

How do we tolerate something a simple as raising the Minimum wage in this country to be held hostage while politicians attempt to use it as a vehicle to create new tax loop holes, tax breaks and tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans as if the poorest among us is not worthy of a pittance in their pay envelopes, after years of deprivation, unless the wealthy and well placed are awarded yet another “entitlement” of evasion of paying just dues to the support of a government that services them disproportionately well; yes this is an “entitlement” for the rich, a word they spit through their teeth with venom when is applied to any other class in this nation…curious?

But let us continue our consideration of and shed some light on why we find ourselves so deeply divided today, placing much of the responsibility for the current chaos and confusion squarely on Bush and his advisors.
The Bush presidency has never been about broadening his support among moderates and progressives. It has focused narrowly and tenaciously on solidifying his support among the right-wing conservative and fundamentalist factions and his “base” of corporate interests and the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

It has never been about uniting this nation; it has always been about divining it, dividing it so that the flock might be managed.

This strategy–a gamble that Karl Rove and his cronies may shortly regret–is yet another reason for American ferment, and distrust of George W. Bush. It proves, yet again, that our President has never had the best interests of America in mind while governing the nation, and invariably seeks to further his own political and economic interests and those of his “base,” and the rest of us be damned.

That is both an analysis and the current general perception in the land, but yet again; we know what is going on and we know it is an abuse of power, but when are we and the Congress going to rise up and put an end to this philosophy of government, a philosophy that inherently says from each American as much as we can take, and into our pockets as much as we can make off with.

All of the things that matter to us all, regardless of political stripe–jobs, the economy, the environment, education, our children’s future and our own well-being–have all been imprisoned, swept into a dark locked closet while Bush, his henchmen and advisors sequester us deeper and deeper into divided, fearful and disinformed, misinformed, misled camps of Seduced Culture War conscriptees.

“Religion” has been manipulated by the Republican Party into a strong and growing force in the way Americans think about politics bearing down on political affiliation, political values, policy attitudes and candidate selection.

Its’ increasing influence on political opinion and behavior rivals race, region, age, social class and gender considerations. More specifically, religion currently has a significant impact on the political views of Christian Americans representing 84% of the voting age population.

Christian political conservatism is associated with every religious dimension covered in all research and political polls. Regardless of denomination, people who “express more faith” are more conservative.People who engage in more religious practices are more conservative.

Those who report that religion plays a very important role in their lives are more conservative.

Polling data indicates that religious influences lead to a more liberal position on some issues, but there is little indication of a coherent pattern of liberal belief associated with any major religion or religious group.
This suits the administration’s agenda as a failure to coalesce behind “liberal” humanitarian social/political issues/causes leaves them free to manipulate the hot button “life and death polarize/divide/distract and redirect issues’, of Abortion, Stem Cell Research, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment.

Add the deflection of Gay and Lesbian Rights, Same Sex Marriages, Prayer and Flag matters, Treasonous Un-American conduct of “liberals who dare to question the expected obligatory Patriotism as defined by the administration, terrorism yesterday, today and tomorrow, International Security, “Illegal Aliens”, “American right or Wrong, support it, support our troops package, the ever present harpy Anti Tax rhetoric, “Family Value?”, and you have “almost” the complete emotional polarizing refocus package!

When people buy into this mental paint job, they feel Patriotic, they: make their personal dutiful patriotic sacrifices “To the Cause” in terms of individual freedoms in the name of “necessary to deal with terrorism impositions”, accept economic decline, stagnant wages and loss of rights and voice in the work place, join the mob that: “Oh woe is me, I hope they can fix the health care, health insurance disaster “someday”.

They can feel as though they are doing something worth while when they scream, brand all others who disagree or question with the words treason and traitors.

It’s a real magicians act, look over here not over there!

This is all part and parcel of the “Flock Mentality” that this administration has worked so diligently at cultivating.

Too many have succumbed; the Democratic Party dissolved into a paralyzed timid, complain only entity, and now, with some vestige of power to change things in their hands, they have been baited into in fighting, posturing on “non binding resolutions” and the sort, that somehow are supposed to demonstrate some manifestation of backbone when in reality they display a continued totally ludicrous picture of a White House castrated Congress.

The White House continues to believe it need only wait out the “minor annoyance” of media meddling and work out a strategy to minimize the impact of a massive March 17 “March On The Pentagon”.

They will turn to right an attempt to rally the Crusaders in their Army of “The Christian Right”, to launch an internal version of a “Holy War” against the resistance protestors from the left.

It may be too late, if only those who care to reclaim the integrity will rise to the moment!

The full impact of religion on American politics is best observed when race is factored into the equation. The conservatism of white evangelical Protestants is clearly the most powerful religious force in politics today.
Analysis of the data reveals that the most meaningful distinction that we must understand is that there are important differences between Protestants who self-identify as evangelical or born again vs. those who do not.

While the classification cuts across denominational lines, Baptists make up the largest share of evangelicals. Mainline denominations such as Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians are predominant among non-evangelical Protestants [Throughout this area of discussion, the terms "non-evangelical Protestant" and "mainline Protestant" are used interchangeably].

White evangelical Protestants are not only much more conservative on policy questions that involve moral issues such as abortion, laws regarding homosexuality and family issues. They are also more conservative on a range of political values including environmentalism and beliefs about international security. Their greater conservatism on non-moral issues is independent of other factors in their backgrounds, such as income or the prevalence of evangelicals in the South.

In the case at hand, the factor that is being manipulated is the political framing of: “We must Honor our troops!”

And here is where you fail.

We who would end this hopeless conflict do not dishonor our troops nor criticize their actions. We respect their efforts and sacrifices, and we do not wish them to feel as so many Vietnam Veterans felt, abandoned, alienated, dishonored and disserted after the conclusion of that ill fated American adventure.

What happened then was the fact that our government assumed an intractable position and maintained it until the level of protest reached that of my Alma Mater Kent State University and a nation was poised at the brink of nearly Revolutionary War furor. The polarization was complete, and the wounds still fester.

“We will be there to protect the wall from those protesters who choose to deface memorials, if any are among those marching on the Pentagon. We will be there also to let the country and the world know, that you do not speak for all of us. You never have and you never will.”

The feeling is mutual. God, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, forbid that such easily lead and manipulated folks such as you speak seriously for anyone but the lunacy fringe of the right. The Republic would be dead!

Your very words are the hyperbolic rhetoric of the same enabling division. As I do not condone the actions of the few members of the SDS at the earlier On the Mall Rally, I cannot condone or respect your rhetorical paint brush splashing the graffiti message that we are threatening or intend to do likewise, when the line of March for the 17th has been made clear in print.

Your attempt at reinforcing stereotypes is not biting commentary, name-calling increases no ones understanding. Vulgarity of accusation or by insinuation, verging on slander, really has no place, except perhaps in extremity of circumstance.

Purposely increasing the magnitude of the false dichotomy between the two opinions for personal or organizational gain is doing this nation, our serviceman and women, humankind, a serious injustice; most of us hold many opinions that cross the lines between Republican and Democrat, conservatives and liberals, and spread across the spectrum of religions.
I fear you are not feeding a desire for knowledge or the truth, but are merely opportunists playing the role of another Bush jester of sensationalism! That is sad.

By the same token, while you attempt to paint the multitudes of protestors who will assemble on March 17 with the same broad brush we do not resort to such demeaning tactics. We accept the words of Don Rumsfeld when he said:

“And in every army, there are occasional bad actors, the ones who dominate the headlines today, who don't live up to the standards of the oath and of our country. But you also know that they are a very, very small percentage of the literally hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving our country with humanity, with decency, with professionalism, and with courage in the face of continuous provocation.” (Applause.)

I accept that as fact and we do not attempt to smear, defile or demonize “all” service personnel or ascribe to them some type of inherent latent flaw of character as you are most certainly guilty of.

Tens of thousands of people will be gathering at Constitution Gardens near the Vietnam Memorial prior to the March on the Pentagon on Saturday March 17.

This is the same location that ANSWER used for its mass anti-war rally on October 26, 2002. On March 17, 2007 we will leave Constitution Gardens and march on Constitution Ave. and then to Virginia on the way to the Pentagon.

We will not be in the Vietnam Memorial and all speakers for amplified sound are turned away from the Memorial so as not to interfere with family members visiting the site. [Read more]


Tens of thousands of people will be gathering at Constitution Gardens at 12 noon near the Vietnam Memorial prior to the March on the Pentagon on Saturday, March 17.

We will not be in the Vietnam Memorial and all speakers for amplified sound are turned away from the Memorial so as not to interfere with family members visiting the site. Constitution Gardens is the same location that ANSWER used for its mass anti-war rally on October 26, 2002. On March 17, 2007 we will leave Constitution Gardens and march on Constitution Ave. and then to Virginia on the way to the Pentagon.
The 58,000 U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in Vietnam and the millions of Vietnamese, who were killed, died in a criminal war.

The connection between Vietnam and Iraq could not be more clear.Iraq is also a criminal war of aggression. The central issue today, just as it was in 1967, is to bring the war to an end.

Thousands of veterans and military families, including those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, will be in the front ranks of the March on the Pentagon.
Some tiny pro-Bush groups who support the war in Iraq, and who normally mobilize about 25 people to hold signs when massive antiwar protests take place, are now callously trying to manipulate Vietnam veterans by spreading rumors that the March on the Pentagon will defile the Vietnam Memorial.

This lie should be treated with the same contempt that people have for the other lies promoted by Bush and his followers to justify an illegal war of aggression: Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction; Iraq was responsible for the September 11 attacks; and that the U.S. occupation would be greeted as an act of liberation by the Iraqi people. Enough lies. Enough deceit!

“We will be there also to let the country and the world know that you do not speak for all of us. You never have and you never will.”

I suppose that the troops and Green Berets who will step off before anyone else are guilty of Treason in your shallowness of thought! I hope that is not true, for that would disgrace any word you might pen.

This rather grandiose portion of your statement invites, begs for, the rebuttal of truth.

I know you do not speak for me. I also know that you do not speak for as broad a constituency of Korean, Vietnam or even Iraq Veterans as you would have us hopefully believe.

I trust that the veterans of Korea, Vietnam and Iraq who have chosen to support the ending of the war and the Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney are somehow exempt from your accusations of treason!!!!

See below….Veterans Call For Impeachment of Bush by Robert Allan Williams


Veterans For Peace are calling for the impeachment of "Benedict Arnold" Bush who has sold our troops out to Blair and his British foreign policy of invading countries that do not threaten us. The sooner Bush is tried for his war crimes and put behind bars, the sooner our troops can come home and stop behaving like Brits.

For Immediate Release Veterans For Peace: NEWS ADVISORY CONTACT: Michael Ferner: 419 729-7273 March 29, 2005 David Cline: 201 876-0430

Veterans For Peace Calls for Congressional Action to Remove George W. Bush from the Office of President of the United States

Who: Veterans For Peace, a national organization of military veterans including men and women from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, other conflicts and peacetime.

What: A call to congress to impeach George W. Bush and Richard Cheney from the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States, respectively.

Why: In a letter sent to each member of the U.S. House and Senate, Veterans For Peace (VFP) stated that “this administration’s war on Iraq, in addition to being increasingly unpopular among Americans, is an unmistakable violation of our Constitution and federal law which you have sworn to uphold.

In our system, the remedy for such high crimes is clear: this administration must be impeached.” David Cline, a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran and VFP President, said, “We do not make this call lightly and as former members of the U.S. armed forces, we take our responsibilities as citizens very seriously.

For that reason we believe that when our government conducts a war of aggression on Iraq and commits a growing and appalling series of what must legally be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity in the execution of that war, it violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441), and numerous international treaties which are legally binding on our nation.”

Cline added that, “We are not the first group to call for impeachment. We have decided to add our voice to the call. All the reasons given for the invasion have shown themselves to be half-truths or misleading. The conflict continues to drag on taking the lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis. It is clear that George Bush does not intend to change course in an effort to right this great wrong. He has had enough time in his second term to begin a shift and he has not. It is time to remove him from office.”

Veterans For Peace is seeking individual and organizational supporters to work jointly on the effort to impeach the president. To read the letter to congress and the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, and the other treaties the administration has violated please follow this link:

Veterans For Peace is a national organization founded in 1985. It is structured around a national office in Saint Louis, MO and comprised of members across the country organized in chapters or as at-large members. The organization includes men and women veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, other conflicts and peacetime veterans.
Our collective experience tells us wars are easy to start and hard to stop and that those hurt are often the innocent. Thus, other means of problem solving are necessary.

Despite overwhelming rejection of its policies in the November elections, the Bush administration has steadily escalated its war in the Middle East.
This has meant not only ordering thousands more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, but arming and financing Israel's attacks on Lebanon and its increasingly brutal oppression of the Palestinians, launching a proxy invasion of Somalia, and threatening to attack Iran and Syria.

As in all wars of conquest, ordinary people pay the price. In Iraq alone, this war for oil and empire has killed at least 655,000 Iraqis, caused 50,000 U.S. casualties, promoted civil war, and cost $1.2 trillion -- with no end in sight.

Meanwhile at home, the administration continues to attack civil liberties, the Arab-Muslim community, undocumented immigrants, Katrina refugees, people of color and labor.

Yet this is a bipartisan war, and as a willing accomplice, the Democratic Party cannot be trusted to end it. Even now, most politicians refuse to cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq, let alone end the war as a whole.
History shows that the U.S. got out of Vietnam only due to tenacious Vietnamese resistance and to the mass antiwar movement, particularly among GIs.

Were they guilty of Treason “Ms. Muldraker”?

Similarly, U.S. war in the Middle East today has been crippled by overwhelming Iraqi resistance, which deserves the support of a mass antiwar movement in this country.

This movement -- which belongs to rank-and-file participants, rather than the leaders of any organization -- must join together in all upcoming protests, including those on January 27 and March 17.

To be effective, the movement must be led by those with the strongest need and greatest power to end the war, including GIs, veterans, workers, people of color, and immigrants. It must also oppose the entire war and demand justice -- at home and abroad:

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia: No war funding, timetables, redeployment, advisors, air-war, or aid to U.S. client regimes.

Reparations for U.S. devastation of the region.
No Support to the Israeli Apartheid State: End the $5 billion annual U.S. government aid to Israel, divest all private investments and union funds, boycott Israel, end the occupation and fully implement the Palestinian right of return.

No Attacks on Iran and Syria -- or Anyone Else.

Defend Our Civil Liberties.
End Attacks on the Arab/Muslim Community.
Full Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants: No detention or deportation.
Money for Human Need, Not for War: Rebuild the Gulf Coast for -- and under the control of -- Katrina survivors.
Decent jobs, food, housing, healthcare, education and transportation for all poor and working people.

NYCLAW Co-Conveners (Other affiliations listed for identification only):
Larry Adams Former President, NPMHU Local 300Michael Letwin Former President, UAW Local 2325/Assn. of Legal Aid AttorneysBrenda Stokely Former President, AFSCME DC 1707; Co-Chair, Million Worker March

As you have associated yourself with: “Check out to see what our mission is all about”

I have included the link, but I must say that after talking with many local veterans in the Alexandria/DC area, but where the organization was seen of some value early on, I was surprised at some of the derogatory terms applied by other veterans to supporters of the organization and its’ current position. It appears that many “eagles” feel the group it out of “The loop” and that is a polite comment!

Be that as it may things have reached a turning point with former single agenda organizations, (Peace in Iraq/Anti War) having embraced the second essential step in achieving peace and the safe return of our men and women…IMPEACHMENT!

Recent events have proven there is no other way to bring the abuses of this administration to a halt.

See Latest Update Post! : (Click Here)

NEW YORK — Impeach the president now, before a new war is started was the message underlining a meeting of 18 national peace and impeachment groups in New York on Feb. 17, according to organizers and participants.
The next two months will see a flurry of impeachment actions nationwide. The groups who took part in the meeting endorsed initiatives ranging from town meeting resolutions to holding mass demonstrations.

Represented at the meeting were The World Can’t Wait, organizers of the Vermont Town Meeting Day impeachment resolutions, Cindy Sheehan — Camp Casey, Gold Star Families for Peace, After Downing Street, Hip Hop Caucus, Progressive Democrats of America,, ANSWER, Code Pink,, Climate Crisis Coalition, Green Party, Traprock Peace Center, Consumers for Peace, Just Foreign Policy, and A 28, as well as individual writers, producers and activists.

A march on the Pentagon is scheduled for March 17, calling for an end to the war and impeachment. Last week, representatives from 60 college campuses conferred to organize students to come out in large numbers. On April 28, additional impeachment demonstrations and actions will take place across the country.

This follows on the heels of protests and walkouts on several college campuses last week, one involving 400 University of California at Santa Barbara students blocking a freeway ramp. In Washington and in Vermont, impeachment resolutions were introduced in the state legislatures. In New Mexico, an impeachment resolution was passed out of the first of three committees on its way to the House floor.

The Vermont Town Meeting impeachment resolution campaign was recognized and efforts are underway to bring Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire towns on board.

The groups also endorsed a series of impeachment town meeting to occur across the country. These will range from debates and discussions to actual citizen hearings with witnesses, testimony and voting for (or against if they so decide) articles of impeachment. These articles would then be sent to Congress.

The Hip Hop Caucus, Books Not Bombs, and Iraq Veterans Against the War announced a national tour of rallies and events, targeting younger citizens in urban communities and on college campuses to take action against war. The tour is currently scheduled for 12 cities between March 19 and April 21 and is still adding dates to the schedule.

Saturday’s meeting was part of The World Can't Wait's emergency conference to impeach Bush for war crimes, hat was held in several locations in New York.

There are now a multitude of organizations working to bring an end to the Iraq War and an end to the Bush administration. A healthy sample of the lead organizations and sources follows:

It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye.

It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.

These are the times when maps fade and direction is lost. Forwards is backwards now, so we glance sideways at the strange lands through which we are all passing, knowing for certain only that our destination has disappeared.

We are unready to meet these times, but we proceed nonetheless, adapting as we wander, reshaping the Earth with every tread. Behind us we have left the old times, the standard times, the high times. Welcome to the irregular times.


Impeach 07
After Downing Street
Backbone Campaign
Center for Constitutional Rights
Citizens Impeachment Commission
CODE PINK Women for Peace
Constitution Summer
Consumers for Peace
Democracy Rising
Gold Star Families for Peace
Green Party of the United States
Hip Hop Caucus
Impeach the President
Military Free Zone
National Lawyers Guild
Patriotic Response to Renegade Govt
Peace Pledge
Stop The War Now
Progressive Democrats of America
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Velvet Revolution
World Can't Wait
Answer Coalition
Iraq Veterans Against The War
Traprock Peace Center
Climate Crisis Coalition
Just Foreign Policy
Veterans for Peace.Org (Home Page)
Veterans For Peace.Org (Impeachment Campaign)
Global Exchange
Backbone Campaign
Campus Antiwar Network
The Young Turks
Citizens for Legitimate Government
Counter Punch
United for Peace and Justice
Stop the War Coalition
Springs Action Alliance
Radio News America
Bush/Cheney Impeachment News
International Socialist Organization
Voters for Peace
Thom Hartmann Show
Environmentalists Against War

U.S. Peace Council
Grandmothers for Peace
Justice Through Music
Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran
The Rational Response Squad
Idriss Stelley Foundation
Voice International
Pixel4Peace, Liberty News TV
Camp US Strike for Peace
Friends Committee on National Legislation

The Following Amendments to The United States Constitution have been Violated, Ignored or Shredded by this administration:

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]
Amendment V
Amendment VI
Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]
Amendment VIII[Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]
Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]
Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]
Amendment XI [Suits Against a State (1795)]
Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XIV)]
Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]

Grounds for ImpeachmentJuly 19, 2006 at 07:53:14
Happy Impeachment Day! 10 Reasons to Impeachby Dave Lindorff
Happy Impeachment Day!

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been playing a leading role in battling the Bush administration's attacks on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and international law, has declared today to be Impeachment Day, with teach-ins scheduled around the country.

Seems like a great occasion to offer up 10 reasons for impeaching the president, as presented in Barbara Olshansky’s and my new book The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.

The case for impeachment just grew much stronger, with the US Supreme Court's powerful decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In that decision, the justices didn't simply say that the President was wrong and in violation of U.S. and the international law in arbitrarily claiming that the Guantánamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War.

The five-justice majority, which included conservative Anthony Kennedy, declared the President's bogus claim to have "special powers" as commander in chief in "time of war" to be just that--bogus.
What has been missed in almost all the mainstream media coverage of this important ruling is that this slap-down of Bush's justification for his Guantánamo decision also undermines his justification for many other of his constitutional violations.

Let's first look at the list of the president's High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They are:

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, (now 655,000 and climbing), is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror.
Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal.

Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Crimes 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and possibly crimes 1, 2 and 6 have all been justified by the president using the claim of "special powers" in his role as commander in chief, the claim that was ruled invalid by the High Court, in relation to crime number 3.

It is clearly high time for all Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and for all American citizens, whatever our politics, who care about the Constitution, American democracy, and the basic freedoms that we as a nation have assumed for over two centuries to be our birthright, to demand that this criminal usurper in the White House be called to account, along with his cronies--especially Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

This is no time for Democrats to be crassly analyzing the political pros and cons of impeachment as a campaign strategy, the way Democratic Party leaders have been doing. Impeachment is the patriotic duty of anyone who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. No member of Congress should be re-elected who doesn't support putting the president in the dock.

Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal").

His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at

Contact AuthorContact EditorView Other Articles by Author
Newer Post Older Post Home

The Complete Case against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney and all other Guilty Subordinates subject to Impeachment, and/or, Civil, and/or ,International Prosecution for criminal actions and for the commission of, or contribution to crimes against Humanity. But First, A Bit Of Perspective: “A crowded elevator smells different to a short person than it does to all the tall people crowding him. Right now this short person feels like he’s in a politically crowded elevator…and it smells really bad!”

PICTURE THIS: A folksy, self-consciously plainspoken Southern politician rises to power during a period of profound unrest in America. The nation is facing one of the half-dozen or so of its worst existential crises to date, and the people, once sunny, confident, and striving, are now scared, angry, and disillusioned. This politician, a ''Professional Common Man,'' executes his rise by relentlessly attacking the liberal media, fancy-talking intellectuals, shiftless progressives, pinkos, promiscuity, and welfare hangers-on, all the while clamoring for a return to traditional values, to love of country, to the pie-scented days of old when things made sense and Americans were indisputably American.

He speaks almost entirely in ''noble but slippery abstractions''-Liberty, Freedom, Equality-and people love him, even if they can't fully articulate why without resorting to abstractions themselves. Through a combination of factors-his easy bearing chief among them (along with massive cash donations from Big Business; disorganization in the liberal opposition; a stuffy, aloof opponent; and support from religious fanatics who feel they've been unfairly marginalized)-he wins the presidential election.

Once in, he appoints his friends and political advisers to high-level positions, stacks the Supreme Court with ''surprisingly unknown lawyers who called [him] by his first name,'' declaws Congress, allows Big Business to dictate policy, consolidates the media, and fills newspapers with ''syndicated gossip from Hollywood.'' Carping newspapermen worry that America is moving backward to a time when anti-German politicians renamed sauerkraut ''Liberty Cabbage'' and ''hick legislators...set up shop as scientific experts and made the world laugh itself sick by forbidding the teaching of evolution,'' but newspaper readers, wary of excessive negativity, pay no mind.

Given the nature of ''powerful and secret enemies'' of America-who are ''planning their last charge'' to take away our freedom-an indefinite state of crisis is declared, and that freedom is stowed away for safekeeping. When the threat passes, we can have it back, but in the meantime, citizens are asked to ''bear with'' the president.

Sure, some say these methods are extreme, but the plain folks are tired of wishy-washy leaders, and feel the president's decisiveness is its own excuse. Besides, as one man says, a fascist dictatorship ''couldn't happen here in America...we're a country of freemen!''

While more paranoid readers might be tempted to draw parallels between this scenario and sundry predicaments we may or may not be in right now, the story line is actually that of Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel ''It Can't Happen Here,'' a hastily written cautionary note about America's potential descent into fascism, recently reissued by New American Library in a handsome trade edition with a blood-spattered cover design.

At its center, ''It Can't Happen Here'' is no different from these prior efforts. It's just carried out on a bigger, more hyperbolic scale: Lewis takes that Babbitt mentality-the entrenched incuriosity, the smug certitude, the conformity, the complacency-and combines it with the growing desperation of the times to envision an end of America as we know it.

It's an unsettling read, especially in a day and age where wags and politicos on both sides compulsively accuse one another of plotting to destroy America. Other such books, most recently Philip Roth's ''The Plot Against America,'' ask whether a fascist dictatorship can happen here.

But whereas Roth manipulates history in order to show what could have happened, imagining an America so blinded by celebrity adulation that it elects an isolationist, anti-Semitic Charles Lindbergh president, Lewis suggests that it already has happened, in little pockets all over America: in bridge club meetings, Rotary luncheons. No invading army will be needed to turn America fascist.

Instead, the catalyst will come from within, and when it does it will speak colloquial American, and it will come waving the Stars and Stripes. However broad its themes, ''It Can't Happen Here'' echoes its time, sometimes literally. The Depression was dragging on, the New Deal was on the rocks, FDR was vulnerable, and the GOP had foundered. People were desperate for strong leadership, and as a result there was a real threat coming from numerous quasi-populist movements led by fire-breathing demagogues promising deliverance.

Among these groups was the Share Our Wealth movement, spearheaded by Senator Huey Long, a former Louisiana governor best known as the inspiration for Willie Stark in Robert Penn Warren's ''All the King's Men.''Long sought to radically redistribute the nation's wealth and impose an income gap, which, while socialist on its face, was more a cynical ploy for votes than a fast-held ideology.

Equally prominent was sulfurous radio personality Father Charles Coughlin's Union of Social Justice, a nativist movement that proposed abolishing the Federal Reserve to reverse the Depression. Both groups were as corrupt as they were illogical, and FDR feared they would combine, unseat him, and replace American democracy with a strain of Hitlerism suited to America's unique temperament.

Driven by his support of Roosevelt and informed by the insights of his second wife, Dorothy Thompson, a pioneering journalist who more than anyone helped bring home the full horrors of Hitler's rise, Lewis cranked out the book in two months in 1935, in the hope that it would help avert what he felt was a looming catastrophe.

In order to do so effectively, though, he would have to mine the collective prejudices and disenchantments inherent in the American character. Can it happen here? Is it happening here already?

That depends, as a recent president might have said, on what the meaning of "it" is.

To Sinclair Lewis, who sardonically titled his 1935 dystopian novel "It Can't Happen Here," "it" plainly meant an American version of the totalitarian dictatorships that had seized power in Germany and Italy. Married at the time to the pioneering reporter Dorothy Thompson, who had been expelled from Berlin by the Nazis a year earlier and quickly became one of America's most outspoken critics of fascism, Lewis was acutely aware of the domestic and foreign threats to American freedom.

So often did he and Thompson discuss the crisis in Europe and the implications of Europe's fate for the Depression-wracked United States that, according to his biographer, Mark Schorer, Lewis referred to the entire topic somewhat contemptuously as "it." If "it" denotes the police state American-style as imagined and satirized by Lewis, complete with concentration camps, martial law, and mass executions of strikers and other dissidents, then "it" hasn't happened here and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

For contemporary Americans, however, "it" could signify our own more gradual and insidious turn toward authoritarian rule. That is why Lewis's darkly funny but grim fable of an authoritarian coup achieved through a democratic election still resonates today -- along with all the eerie parallels between what he imagined then and what we live with now.

For the first time since the resignation of Richard M. Nixon more than three decades ago, Americans have had reason to doubt the future of democracy and the rule of law in our own country. Today we live in a state of tension between the enjoyment of traditional freedoms, including the protections afforded to speech and person by the Bill of Rights, and the disturbing realization that those freedoms have been undermined and may be abrogated at any moment.

Such foreboding, which would have been dismissed as paranoia not so long ago, has been intensified by the unfolding crisis of political legitimacy in the capital. George W. Bush has repeatedly asserted and exercised authority that he does not possess under the Constitution he swore to uphold. He has announced that he intends to continue exercising power according to his claim of a mandate that erases the separation and balancing of power among the branches of government, frees him from any real obligation to obey laws passed by Congress, and permits him to ignore any provisions of the Bill of Rights that may prove inconvenient.

Whether his fellow Americans understand exactly what Bush is doing or not, his six years in office have created intense public anxiety. Much of that anxiety can be attributed to fear of terrorism, which Bush has exacerbated to suit his own purposes -- as well as to increasing concern that the world is threatened by global warming, pandemic diseases, economic insecurity, nuclear proliferation, and other perils with which this presidency cannot begin to cope.

As the midterm election showed, more and more Americans realize that something has gone far wrong at the highest levels of government and politics -- that Washington's one-party regime had created a daily spectacle of stunning incompetence and dishonesty.

Pollsters have found large majorities of voters worrying that the country is on the wrong track. At this writing, two of every three voters give that answer, and they are not just anxious but furious. Almost half are willing to endorse the censure of the president. Suspicion and alienation extend beyond the usual disgruntled Democrats to independents and even a significant minority of Republicans.

A surprisingly large segment of the electorate is willing to contemplate the possibility of impeaching the president, unappetizing though that prospect should be to anyone who can recall the destructive impeachment of Bush's predecessor.

The reasons for popular disenchantment with the Republican regime are well known -- from the misbegotten, horrifically mismanaged war in Iraq to the heartless mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. In both instances, growing anger over the damage done to the national interest and the loss of life and treasure has been exacerbated by evidence of bad faith -- by lies, cronyism, and corruption.

Everyone knows -- although not everyone necessarily wishes to acknowledge -- that the Bush administration misled the American people about the true purposes and likely costs of invading Iraq. It invented a mortal threat to the nation in order to justify illegal aggression. It has repeatedly sought, from the beginning, to exploit the state of war for partisan advantage and presidential image management.

It has wasted billions of dollars, and probably tens of billions, on Pentagon contractors with patronage connections to the Republican Party.

Everyone knows, too, that the administration dissembled about the events leading up to the destruction of New Orleans. Its negligence and obliviousness in the wake of the storm were shocking, as was its attempt to conceal its errors. It has yet to explain why a person with few discernible qualifications, other than his status as a crony and business associate of his predecessor, was directing the Federal Emergency Management Agency. By elevating ethically dubious, inexperienced, and ineffectual management the administration compromised a critical agency that had functioned brilliantly during the Clinton administration.

To date, however, we do not know the full dimensions of the scandals behind Iraq and Katrina, because the Republican leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives abdicated the traditional congressional duties of oversight and investigation. It is due to their dereliction that neither the president nor any of his associates have seemed even mildly chastened in the wake of catastrophe. With a single party monopolizing power yet evading responsibility, there was nobody with the constitutional power to hold the White House accountable.

Bolstered by political impunity, especially in a time of war, perhaps any group of politicians would be tempted to abuse power. But this party and these politicians, unchecked by normal democratic constraints, proved to be particularly dangerous. The name for what is wrong with them -- the threat embedded within the Bush administration, the Republican congressional leadership, and the current leaders of the Republican Party -- is authoritarianism.

The most obvious symptoms can be observed in the regime's style, which features an almost casual contempt for democratic and lawful norms; an expanding appetite for executive control at the expense of constitutional balances; a reckless impulse to corrupt national institutions with partisan ideology; and an ugly tendency to smear dissent as disloyalty.

The most troubling effects are matters of substance, including the suspension of traditional legal rights for certain citizens; the imposition of secrecy and the inhibition of the free flow of information; the extension of domestic spying without legal sanction or warrant; the promotion of torture and other barbaric practices, in defiance of American and international law; and the collusion of government and party with corporate interests and religious fundamentalists.

What worries many Americans even more is that the authoritarians can excuse their excesses as the necessary response to an enemy that every American knows to be real. For the past five years, the Republican leadership has argued that the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- and the continuing threat from jihadist groups such as al Qaeda -- demand permanent changes in American government, society, and foreign policy. Are those changes essential to preserve our survival -- or merely useful for unscrupulous politicians who still hope to achieve permanent domination by their own narrowly ideological party?

Not only liberals and leftists, but centrists, libertarians, and conservatives, of every party and no party, have come to distrust the answers given by those in power. The most salient dissent to be heard in recent years, and especially since Bush's reelection in 2004, has been voiced not by the liberals and moderates who never trusted the Republican leadership, but by conservatives who once did.

Former Republican congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who served as one of the managers of the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the House of Representatives, has joined the American Civil Liberties Union he once detested. In the measures taken by the Bush administration and approved by his former colleagues, Barr sees the potential for "a totalitarian type regime."

Paul Craig Roberts, a longtime contributor to the Wall Street Journal and a former Treasury official under Reagan, perceives the "main components of a police state" in the Bush administration's declaration of plenary powers to deny fundamental rights to suspected terrorists.

Bruce Fein, who served as associate attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, believes that the Bush White House is "a clear and present danger to the rule of law," and that the president "cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses."

Syndicated columnist George Will accuses the administration of pursuing a "monarchical doctrine" in its assertion of extraordinary war powers.

In the 2006 midterm election, disenchanted conservatives joined with liberals and centrists to deliver a stinging rebuke to the regime by overturning Republican domination in both houses of Congress. For the first time since 1994, Democrats control the Senate and the House of Representatives.

But the Democratic majority in the upper chamber is as narrow as possible, depending on the whims of Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a Republican-leaning Democrat elected on an independent ballot line, who has supported the White House on the occupation of Iraq, abuse of prisoners of war, domestic spying, the suspension of habeas corpus, military tribunals, far-right judicial nominations, and other critical constitutional issues. Nor is Lieberman alone among the Senate Democrats in his supine acquiescence to the abuses of the White House.

Even if the Democrats had won a stronger majority in the Senate, it would be naive to expect that a single election victory could mend the damage inflicted on America's constitutional fabric during the past six years.

While the Bush administration has enjoyed an extraordinary immunity from Congressional oversight until now, the deepest implication of its actions and statements, as explored in the pages that follow, is that neither legislators nor courts can thwart the will of the unitary executive.

When Congress challenges that presidential claim, as inevitably it will, then what seems almost certain to follow is not "bipartisanship" but confrontation.

The election of 2006 was not an end but another beginning. The question that we face in the era of terror alerts, religious fundamentalism, and endless warfare is whether we are still the brave nation preserved and rebuilt by the generation of Sinclair Lewis -- or whether our courage, and our luck, have finally run out. America is not yet on the verge of fascism, but democracy is again in danger.

The striking resemblance between Buzz Windrip [the demagogic villain of Lewis's novel] and George W. Bush and the similarity of the political forces behind them is more than a literary curiosity. It is a warning on yellowed pages from those to whom we owe everything.

(1.) "BIPARTISANSHIP" Sounds like a nice and fair minded word, doesn't it, but here's the pug translation: Over the last seven years, the Bush/Republicans have pushed America, let's just say, 25 giant steps to the right. We have long sense left the lunatic fringe and are now floating upside down in a right wing universe. So, bipartisanship for a bushivick means taking one or two baby steps back to the left, even though that would still leave us in a position at least 23 times worse than where we were before the year 2000! The Senate Democrats actually tried to be bipartisan about the Iraqi resolution, but ended up not only with egg on their face but elbows in the ribs.

The pugs are like a bunch of thugs who steal your cars, your house (inside and out), and then hack into your online financial transactions, but in the interests of "bipartisanship" they grudgingly agree to return the wheels of one of your cars and maybe the silverware, fully expecting the world to regard this "generosity" as fair minded and just. This is called having your cake (i.e., "our" cake) and eating it too. Or, to say it flat out like we used to talk when I was in high school, it means we walk away from being politically gang banged with a shit eating grin.

The morale is self evident. Bipartisanship is fine IF AND ONLY IF it is a civilized way to revitalize populist America, and we should have no illusions that this won't take years and years of systematic commitment. We've got to change the Royal Bush Family's bought and paid for Supreme Court for openers and then bring America's environmental protection agencies back from the dead.

We also must stop these infinitely self destructive Cheney/Halliburton oil wars and bring home America's heroes. And on and on. You know the list. The point is we will never get within light years of any of these reforms so long as we continue to be suckered into a lose/lose definition of the Republican "bipartisanship" -- which, by the way, are exactly the bipartisanship agendas of dem "centrists" like Judas Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton (the DLC Carville/Clinton smiley face doll).

The tragic irony of Hillary is that if America ever needed the healing wisdom and strength of the Goddess, we need Her now, but Hillary Clinton is a commitmentless desecration of this energy

(2.) "CONSPIRACY" This is the fire wall word the pugs have militantly erected around all plausible high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush/Republican administration. And make no mistake (to borrow some Catholic theology), we're not talking about "venial" sins, but "mortal" sins, i.e., acts of Evil and pathology that trivialize business as usual political hypocrisy and greed .Such as?

Well, the biggie is the "real story" about 9/11! If you do a search you will find literally hundreds (probably thousands) of carefully researched studies which argue that the Bush/Republican administration wasn't merely guilty of criminal ineptitude, but of much darker activities: specifically, that 9/11 wasn't limited to default stupidity, but that it was in some very real sense "actively encouraged" by elements in the Bush Administration.

We should never forget that Bush was in the political toilet before 9/11, but AFTER 9/11 he suddenly because a media created cardboard patriot (but why, for hiding out in basements?).

The truth of the matter is that for millions of Americans this possibility has long since evolved into an effective certainty. However, for this discussion, let's keep all the cards on the table and stay with possibility only. The factual evidence is overwhelming that literally hundreds of warnings that 9/11 was in the wind were conspicuously ignored by the Bush Administration and how can this not suggest the possibility that these warning were not acted on intentionally?

Our country has long since discounted the first Bush spin on 9/11, which was that the bushivicks were caught with their pants down and 9/11 was a totally unexpected meteor from hell. The second, and damage control, spin was that 9/11 (to some trivial degree) was a Bush mistake, and the pugs should have been more alert and protective of America.

However, the 3rd scenario is as straight from hell as 9/11.

It is that 9/11 was neither impossible to predict, nor a Republican screw up; rather in this treasonous scenario, 9/11 was literally encouraged (however indirectly) IN ORDER to metamorphose Bush into a war time President .

A President, lest we forget, who then immediately became a mortal enemy of our Constitutional Republic and dragged America into two quicksand Middle Eastern oil wars (with a 3rd one in the wings) and who is criminally annihilating the American middle and lower classes with munificent tax breaks for multimillionaires and billionaires -- including Texas energy companies which are raping and murdering Mother Nature as we speak.

The point is, the Bush atrocities started virtually the next day after 9/11.

Before that he was an ineffectual wimp and disliked by most Americans (remember he did NOT receive the popular vote!).Well, possibility or reality? Clearly it's up to each of us to choose, but so long as that firewall is strong, we will never be able to find out the necessary facts to make that determination.

Of course, that in itself is a little damning, isn't it? My goodness, if this possibility is without basis, why doesn't the Bush/Administration come clean and share with America the thousands and thousands of documents which would quickly result in a thumbs up or thumbs down?

Lastly, if history says it's thumbs down, without a doubt, this will be the most monstrous patriotic and moral betrayal in American history.

Christopher Epler (Bill) more op-eds, poetry, fiction, and essays from Bill at The Liberation of Realism



But just look at what Teddy Roosevelt had to say!

"The President should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."




In a representative democracy, the rule of law establishes the necessary premise that no one is above the law, the land, and the people. However, today we suffer under an administration which sees itself above the rule of law.

The Bush administration has continuously lied to and manipulated the American people with illegal surveillance, mass detentions without judicial review, torture and signing statements that carve out exceptions to legislation. Today it is time for you to take action and tell the Bush administration we will no longer allow their abuse of power to go unnoticed.

Veterans Call For Impeachment of Bush Sunday, January 01, 2006 12:09:00 AMby Robert Allan Williams

Veterans For Peace are calling for the impeachment of "Benedict Arnold" Bush who has sold our troops out to Blair and his British foreign policy of invading countries that do not threaten us. The sooner Bush is tried for his war crimes and put behind bars, the sooner our troops can come home and stop behaving like Brits.

For Immediate Release Veterans For Peace:

NEWS ADVISORY CONTACT: Michael Ferner: 419 729-7273 March 29, 2005 David Cline: 201 876-0430

Veterans For Peace Calls for Congressional Action to Remove George W. Bush from the Office of President of the United States Who: Veterans For Peace, a national organization of military veterans including men and women from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, other conflicts and peacetime.

What: A call to congress to impeach George W. Bush and Richard Cheney from the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States, respectively. Why: In a letter sent to each member of the U.S. House and Senate, Veterans For Peace (VFP) stated that “this administration’s war on Iraq, in addition to being increasingly unpopular among Americans, is an unmistakable violation of our Constitution and federal law which you have sworn to uphold.

In our system, the remedy for such high crimes is clear: this administration must be impeached.” David Cline, a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran and VFP President, said, “We do not make this call lightly and as former members of the U.S. armed forces, we take our responsibilities as citizens very seriously. For that reason we believe that when our government conducts a war of aggression on Iraq and commits a growing and appalling series of what must legally be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity in the execution of that war, it violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441), and numerous international treaties which are legally binding on our nation.” Cline added that, “We are not the first group to call for impeachment.

We have decided to add our voice to the call. All the reasons given for the invasion have shown themselves to be half-truths or misleading. The conflict continues to drag on taking the lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis. It is clear that George Bush does not intend to change course in an effort to right this great wrong. He has had enough time in his second term to begin a shift and he has not. It is time to remove him from office.” Veterans For Peace is seeking individual and organizational supporters to work jointly on the effort to impeach the president.

To read the letter to congress and the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, and the other treaties the administration has violated please follow this link:

Veterans For Peace is a national organization founded in 1985. It is structured around a national office in Saint Louis, MO and comprised of members across the country organized in chapters or as at-large members. The organization includes men and women veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, other conflicts and peacetime veterans. Our collective experience tells us wars are easy to start and hard to stop and that those hurt are often the innocent. Thus, other means of problem solving are necessary. Veterans For Peace:
Veterans For Peace
Impeach For Peace.Org
Democracy Now.Org
Smirking Chimp.Com

I hold that Impeachment of several members of this administration is absolutely necessary to provide for justice, the restoration of legitimate Constitutional Governance of our nation, and we the people have both the duty and legal power exercise that right!

Impeachment has been part of American culture longer than baseball or apple pie. Only Mom has been around longer than impeachment.
The Scottish take pride in having invented impeachment. The British got it from them, and we got it from the British. Impeachment is in the US Constitution, and was further developed by Thomas Jefferson in the manual of procedural rules that he wrote for the Congress. These I have addressed in detail other earlier postings.

The Constitution mentions impeachment six times. It makes clear that impeachment is a power the legislature has over the executive and judicial branches of government. And this power is not an afterthought. It is central to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution created, and which the current administration is well on its way to destroying.
The Constitution opens with this preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Then Article One speaks to the powers of the legislature. Article Two addresses the powers of the President. And section 4 of Article Two reads: "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."

The Framers of the Constitution drafted that language to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust.

James Madison, speaking at Virginia's ratification convention said: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."

James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina's ratification convention: "The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.

He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him?"

Thomas Jefferson was gravely concerned by the interpretation of the Constitution which holds that the Judiciary has the power to determine whether the other two branches are acting in accordance with the law. Jefferson pushed forward an alternative view, which holds that the legislative branch of government has that power over the judiciary and the executive, because the Constitution grants Congress the ability to impeach, and because Members of Congress are subject to rejection by the people through elections. And Jefferson became frustrated and disappointed when he saw justices engaging in what he considered abuses of power, but not being impeached and removed from office.

Can you imagine how he would have reacted to the ruling in Bush versus Gore?

But the abuse of power that the founders of this country feared most was the launching of aggressive wars. This was why they granted the Congress, and not the President the power to declare war. This was why Iredell believed it was the President's responsibility to report all exchanges with foreign powers to the senate.

We are now in a situation in which our President has taken us into an aggressive war on the basis of lies. And he claims to have provided Congress with all the information he possessed, yet he will not turn over his daily briefings so that Congress can see for itself.

The evidence that Bush and Cheney have committed the most serious high crime and misdemeanor is overwhelming, and includes not just the eight Downing Street memos and the recent White House memo, but the recorded statements of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Feith and Trent Lott, the testimony of Paul O'Neil and Richard Clark and Bob Graham.

For the full case, see .

But then, there's more than an illegal war here. There's illegal spying. There's illegal leaking. There's lying to Congress, the UN, and the American people. There's torture and arrests without cause. There's illegal propaganda at taxpayers' expense. There's illegal targeting of civilians and use of napalm, white phosphorous, and depleted uranium. There's the neglect that led to the disasters of Katrina and 9-11. And there's the disastrous energy policy that is promoting global warming.

If we cannot impeach now, we never can. If we do not impeach now, we are effectively removing impeachment from the Constitution.

Polls show that the American people are far out ahead of Congress. In every poll that has been done, a majority has favored impeachment and favored voting for pro-impeachment Congressional candidates.

Congressman John Conyers has introduced a bill to create an investigation, similar to the Watergate investigation, to make recommendations on impeachment. Twenty-seven members of Congress have signed onto that bill, House Resolution 635. None of them are from Virginia.

Our Congressman here in Charlottesville, Virgil Goode, whom we pay $158,000 a year, is devoting his energies to two projects. First, he wants to name English the official language of the nation. That should really ease the suffering of millions, right?

And then, because ours is the one industrialized nation on the planet that has no single-payer health care and wastes billions of dollars on insurance companies, Goode wants to pass a bill that would allow struggling families to donate their tax refunds to people who have no health coverage. There's bold leadership for you. I won’t even bother with where he has been lead by the nose!

But, to be fair, our best challenger to Goode this year, Al Weed, has not spoken out for impeachment yet either. Maybe he doesn't realize that three quarters of Democrats are passionate about it, and so are a majority of Independents.

A large coalition of organizations recently announced plans to organize protests outside the homes of Congress Members to demand impeachment of Bush and Cheney and an end to the war.

To get involved in that, you can sign up at is not the Democratic Party, but an activist group working to change the Democratic Party.

Virgil Goode lives in Rocky Mount, so it's far for us in Charlottesville. But we might have to be the once to caravan down one weekend and do it. We can also protest at his office here. The question is not whether we think he can be brought around, it's whether we can be brought around as citizens to do our proper duty and demand it.

Jefferson's manual provides rules on impeachment and says that a state legislature can send impeachment charges to the US House. A number of states have begun working on that. Our state may be too busy abusing gay people.

But our city of Charlottesville can pass a resolution supporting impeachment. A growing list of cities and counties and political parties around the country have done so.

There's information at

We can also pressure national organizations to take on impeachment. This is a debate right now within United for Peace and Justice, and it's not even on the radar screen of If our own organizations can't do it, how can we expect Congress to do so? Let's get to work!

Bush’s particular brand of all-powerful State has done its dead-level best since 9/11 to cultivate a compliant, tolerant public, but those attempts over the long-term are proving to be unsustainable. There’s simply too much overhead – too many scandals, revelations, and disparate foreign policy flare-ups in every direction.

Because Bush can no longer reasonably depend on winning hearts and minds through persuasion, he’s forced to take action against activities that threaten the tolerance and uncritical acceptance at home that his neoconservative foreign policy goals require. He must take action against people who spread dissent or watch helplessly as the entire house of cards implodes.

Reinforcing stereotypes is not biting commentary, name-calling increases no one’s understanding, and so as the administration has come to favor references to Hitler, Nazi Germany, Mussolini and Fascist Italy in the past few months, so I think I’ll just plow a bit of that ground in return.
I'm not going to rant about what they have said or argue their points. I'm just going to quote another person. A true Nazi, Herman Goering:

“Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” This quote is seen often enough and does not have to beat a dead horse and launch into a long diatribe about the obvious analogy.

Herman Goering, Nazi Reichs Marshall and Luftwaffe-Chief, made this statement when he was on trial at Nuremberg. The statement was made to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist. Gilbert had access to all the prisoners held at Nuremberg.

This quote is not an urban legend. Goering did make the above statement to Gilbert. Gilbert included the conversation in his book Nuremberg Diary. The quote as written above, though, does take out Gilbert's comments to Goering in the middle of that statement. Personally, I find the original quote, including Gilbert's response, a bit more chilling.

“We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I've only got one question, do Goering’s words sound like something that has been happening in the last few years?


It has been said: “We are what we eat: Here is the Bush Flock Feed!”

Bush’s particular brand of all-powerful State has done its dead-level best since 9/11 to cultivate a compliant, tolerant public, but those attempts over the long-term are proving to be unsustainable. There’s simply too much overhead – too many scandals, revelations, and disparate foreign policy flare-ups in every direction.

Because Bush can no longer reasonably depend on winning hearts and minds through persuasion, he’s forced to take action against activities that threaten the tolerance and uncritical acceptance at home that his neoconservative foreign policy goals require. He must take action against people who spread dissent or watch helplessly as the entire house of cards implodes.

Defeatism, Dissent, and Treason at Home During War (Book Notes: Hitler's Prisons)

In Hitler's Prisons: Legal Terror in Nazi Germany, Nikolaus Wachsmann explains the importance of attack war-dissenters in Hitler’s rhetoric:
It’s interesting that one of the persistent criticisms made about the Bush administration’s handling of the “war on terrorism” is that despite the grandiose rhetoric about America being in a desperate war, Bush has never even hinted at people making material sacrifices for the sake of the war effort. He’s more than willing to force Americans to sacrifice civil liberties, but material sacrifices that might cause people to see a drop in their standard of living have apparently been excluded.

It’s also interesting that both Bush and his supporters have been pretty consistent in pushing claims about the power of dissenters at home to undermine the war effort.

Despite the fact that pretty much the entire national government is in the hands of a single political party and the fact that there has been no meaningful opposition that has managed to thwart any of the screwed up administration’s policies in Iraq, the failures in Iraq still manage to be the responsibility of dissenters who have no power or authority in any relevant political area.

It’s all part of a troubling syndrome in America. It is always someone else’s fault, be it Johnny in the classroom, or death and destruction in an illegal war. You take all the facts and the administration just persists in tossing them into the blender of obfuscation hoping everyone will waste their time on dealing with the mush they pour on our plates, while they go merrily on their way ignoring all of us and any law they so choose!

It's through extreme hyperbole, a favorite technique/approach of this administration and its flock followers, (the “I have made up my mind so don’t confuse me with the facts crowd, and the I’ll call you any name I damn well feel like, big mouths”) that has excelled Ann Coulter into conservative stardom, unwavering in her no-compromise approach to dealing with liberals.

Before Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right Coulter wasn't the well-known firebrand that she is today. Gone are the days when the "praise" list on the back flap included Bill Maher - a liberal friend, and Geraldo Rivera to get noticed.

Crooks and Liars John Amato’s virtual online magazine


Special Comment: Secretary Rice, Get Your Facts Straight!

By: SilentPatriot on Monday, February 26th, 2007 at 6:32 PM - PST In tonight's Special Comment, Keith took Condi to task for making the following ridiculous and historically inaccurate analogy on FOX News Sunday yesterday:

"…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

Transcripts below the fold…

Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on the remarks yesterday by Secretary of State Rice.

We already know about her suggestion that the President could just ignore whatever Congressional Democrats do about Iraq.

Just ignore Congress.

We know how that game always turns out. Ask President Nixon. Ask President Andrew Johnson.

Or ask Vice President Cheney, who utterly contradicted Secretary Rice today, when he warned Mr. Musharraf of Pakistan about what those mean Congressional Democrats could do to his foreign aid.

All of this, par for the course.

But about what the Secretary said regarding the prospect of Congress, revising or repealing the 2002 authorization of the war in Iraq:

Here we go again!

From springs spent trying to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11, to summers of cynically manipulated intelligence through autumns of false patriotism, to winters of war, we have had more than four years of every cheap trick and every degree of calculated cynicism from this Administration, filled with three-card Monte players.

But the longer Dr. Rice and these other pickpockets of a nation's goodness have walked among us, waving flags and slandering opponents and making true enemies — foreign and domestic — all hat and no cattle all the while, the overriding truth of their occupancy of our highest offices of state, has only gradually become clear.

As they asked in that Avis Commercial: "Ever get the feeling some people just stopped trying?"

Secretary Rumsfeld thought he could equate those who doubted him, with Nazi appeasers, without reminding anybody that the actual, historical Nazi appeasers in this country in the 1930’s were the Republicans.

Vice President Cheney thought he could talk as if he and he alone knew the 'truth' about Iraq and 9/11, without anyone ever noticing that even the rest of the Administration officially disagreed with him.

But Secretary of State Rice may have now taken the cake.

On the Sunday Morning Interview Show of Broken-Record on Fox, Dr. Rice spoke a paragraph, which if it had been included in a remedial history paper at the weakest high school in the nation, would've gotten the writer an "F" - maybe an expulsion.

If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present, "…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

The Secretary's resume reads that she has a Masters' Degree and a PhD in Political Science. The interviewer should have demanded to see them, on the spot.

Dr. Rice spoke 42 words.

She may have made more mistakes in them, than did the President in his State of the Union Address in 2003

There is, obviously, no mistaking Saddam Hussein for a human being.But nor is there any mistaking him for Adolf Hitler.

Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to exterminate the Jews; who sought to overtake the world — is not just in the poorest of taste but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it. And defeated it.

Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler.

And George W. Bush is not Franklin D. Roosevelt — nor Dwight D. Eisenhower.He isn't even George H.W. Bush, who fought in that war.

However, even through the clouds of deliberately-spread fear, and even under the weight of a thousand exaggerations of the five years past, one can just barely make out how a battle against international terrorism in 2007 could be compared — by some — to the Second World War.

The analogy is weak, and it instantly begs the question of why those of "The Greatest Generation" focused on Hitler and Hirohito but our leaders seem to have ignored their vague parallels of today to instead concentrate on the Mussolinis of modern terrorism.

But in some, small, "you didn't fail, Junior, but you may need to go to summer school" kind of way, you can just make out that comparison.But Secretary Rice, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was akin to overthrowing Adolf Hitler?

Are you kidding?

Did you want to provoke the world's laughter?

And, please, Madame Secretary, if you are going to make that most implausible, subjective, dubious, ridiculous comparison…

If you want to be as far off the mark about the Second World War as, say, the pathetic Holocaust-denier from Iran, Ahmadinejad…

At least get the easily verifiable facts right — the facts whose home through history lie in your own department.

"The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department — your office, Secretary Rice — and ninety minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the Chief of the Department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier and the Germans simply piled on.

Your predecessors, Dr. Rice, didn't spend a year making up phony evidence and mistaking German balloon-inflating trucks for mobile germ warfare labs.They didn't pretend the world was ending because a tin-pot tyrant couldn't hand over the chemical weapons, it turned out he'd destroyed a decade earlier.

The Germans walked up to the front door of our State Department and said "we're at war."

It was in all the papers!

And when that war ended, more than three horrible years later, our troops, and the Russians, were in Berlin. And we stayed, as an occupying force, well in the 1950's.

As an occupying force, Madam Secretary!

If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany, to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy.We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq.

And if that's the way you see it, you damn well better come out and tell the American people so. (Save your breath telling it to the Iraqis — most of them already buy that part of the comparison).

"It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown." We already have a subjectively false comparison between Hitler and Saddam.

We already have a historically false comparison between Germany and Iraq.We already have blissful ignorance by our Secretary of State about how this country got into the war against Hitler.

But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq, that it would be as ridiculous in the Secretary's eyes, as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do!

We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown!

It was called the Marshall Plan.


General George Catlett Marshall!Secretary of State!

The job you have now!


Twelve billion, 400 thousand dollars to stabilize all of Europe economically — to keep the next enemies of freedom, the Russians, out, and democracy, in!

And how do you suppose that happened? The President of the United States went back to Congress, and asked it for a new authorization, and for the money.

And do you have any idea, Madame Secretary, who opposed him when he did that?

The Republicans!

'We've spent enough money in Europe,' said Senator Taft of Ohio.

'We've spent enough of our resources,' said former President Hoover.

It's time to pull out of there!

As they stand up, we'll stand down!

This administration has long thought otherwise, but you can't cherry-pick life — whether life in 2007 or life in the history page marked 1945.

You can't keep the facts that fit your prejudices, and throw out the ones that destroy your theories.

And if you're going to try to do that; if you still want to fool some people into thinking that Saddam was Hitler, and once we gave FDR that blank check in Germany he was no longer subject to the laws of Congress or gravity or physics, at least, stop humiliating us.

Get your facts straight.

Use….. the Google!

You've been on Fox News Sunday, Secretary Rice.

That network has got another show premiering tomorrow night.

You could go on that one, too.

It might be a better fit.

It's called "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?"

Contact UsJohn at C&L Mike's Blog Round-UpSite MonitorsCategoriesABC (6)John Stossel (5)This Week/George Stephanopoulos (34)Ads (45)Air America (14)Al Gore (34)Attack the Blogs (40)Attack the Media (53)Ava Lowery (9)Blogs (196)Arthur Silber (58)Glenn Greenwald (67)James Wolcott (2)Juan Cole (2)Matt Drudge (5)Murray Waas (10)NRO (10)Peter Daou (12)Bloopers (10)Campaigns/Elections (274)Blue America (63)Busby/Bilbray (10)Election 08 (32)Election 2006 (36)Netroots/Blue America (23)CBS (7)CBS Evening News (2)Face The Nation/Bob Schieffer (9)CIA (23)Cindy Sheehan (3)Civil Liberties (59)Abortion (23)Fascism (7)Gay Rights (37)Clintons (27)Bill Clinton (8)CLLN Music Club (317)CNN (11)Jack Cafferty (46)Larry King (8)Late Edition/Wolf Blitzer (8)Lou Dobbs (7)Reliable Sources/Howard Kurtz (21)The Situation Room/Wolf Blitzer (45)Conservative Talking Points (83)Corruption (84)Crooks (39)Culture/Life/Entertainment (101)Books/Book Reviews (95)David Letterman (8)Dixie Chicks (9)Jay Leno/The Tonight Show (5)Movies / Movie Reviews (30)protest music (3)Real Time (8)Satire (91)The Colbert Report/Stephen Colbert (82)The Daily Show/Jon Stewart (88)TV series (16)Zappa (2)Darfur (1)Democratic Party (61)Howard Dean/DNC (14)John Edwards (8)Ned Lamont (116)Wesley Clark (9)Fox News (85)Bill O’Reilly (82)Brit Hume (10)Fox & Friends (8)Fox News Sunday/Chris Wallace (37)Hannity & Colmes (46)John Gibson (8)Your World/Neil Cavuto (5)George W. Bush (292)GOP (2)Government Policy (72)Committees (4)Economy (36)Education (5)Foreign Policy (42)Hearings (38)Homeland Security (25)Immigration (26)Intelligence Gathering (44)Social Security (2)Guest Post (136)Mike Farrell (2)Hackery (89)Halliburton (1)Health/Science (29)evolution (4)Global Warming (49)Stem Cells (11)Hillary Clinton (3)Hurricane Katrina (42)a look back at Katrina (16)NOLA (7)International Perspectives (21)interviews (1)Investigations (22)Jersey Girls (4)Jimmy Carter (6)John Amato interviews (10)Jonathan Turley (11)Judicial Issues (6)Liars (48)Lobbies (5)Media Bias (141)Media Criticism (151)Middle East (72)Iran (66)Iraq (454)Israel (4)Mike’s Blog Round Up (499)MSNBC (7)Countdown/Keith Olbermann (148)Hardball/Chris Matthews (48)Imus In The Morning/Don Imus (10)Scarborough Country/Joe Scarborough (34)NBC (2)Meet the Press/Tim Russert (35)NBC Nightly News/Brian Williams (1)Neocons/PNAC (30)Net Neutrality (24)NY Times (37)Oil (12)Open Thread (346)Polls (32)Progressive Politics Action (5)Protests (12)Pundits (15)Helen Thomas (7)Joe Klein (7)John Dean (5)Seymour Hersh (4)Racism/Bigotry (78)Religion (39)Religious Right (107)Bill Donohue/Catholic League (5)Republican Hypocrisy (61)Republican Party (42)Ken Mehlman/RNC (15)Newt Gingrich (10)Rick Santorum (27)Rudy Giuliani (14)Right Wing Pundits (114)Ann Coulter (43)Kate O’Beirne (3)Michelle Malkin (17)Robert Novak (13)Rush Limbaugh (47)Right Wing Stupidity (166)Rubber Stamp Congress (35)Scandals (111)Abramoff (23)Duke Cunningham (5)Enron (6)Gitmo/Abu Ghraib (25)Mark Foley (2)MBALibbyTrial (30)NSA Wiretapping (70)Plame Case/Pat Fitzgerald (64)Swiftboating (17)Terri Schiavo (7)Site Management (18)Smears (48)Sports (24)Sunday Morning Talk Shows (17)Supporting our Troops (70)Supreme Court (15)Taxes (5)Ted Kennedy (1)Terrorism (95)Moussaoui (2)The House (82)Curt Weldon (8)Jack Murtha (28)James Sensenbrenner (4)Joe Sestak (5)John Conyers (7)Katherine Harris (13)Nancy Pelosi (26)Tom Delay (20)The Senate (61)Barack Obama (22)Bill Frist (16)Chuck Hagel (14)Jim Webb (3)Joe Biden (9)Joe Lieberman (184)John Kerry (9)John McCain (64)Russ Feingold (10)Ted Stevens (2)TNR (12)Torture (55)Uncategorized (7901)Unions (8)United Nations (13)John Bolton (16)Voting Rights (30)WaPo (39)Dan Froomkin (14)War Coverage (454)White House (115)Alberto Gonzales (11)Condoleezza Rice (24)Dick Cheney (64)Donald Rumsfeld (42)Karl Rove (29)Michael McConnell (1)Robert Gates (6)Tony Snow (22)Wingnuts (253)Write Your Own Caption (18)WSJ (5)· Blogrollalicublog AmericaBlogat-LargelyBalloon Juicebart copbob harrisBrad Blogbuzzflashdaily howlerDaily Kosdemocratic undergroundDown with tyrannyechidne of the snakesEschatonEzra KleinfeministingFiredoglakefirst-draftGlenn GreenwaldIntoxinationJames WolcottJay RosenJesus GeneralKung Fu Monkeyleft coasterMahablogMajikthiseMia CulpaMyDDNewsHogpandagonPetrelis FilespharyngulaPrairieWeatherRaw StoryRising Hegemonrude punditSadly, No!shakespearessisterskippy the bush kangaroosteve audioSteve GilliardTalk LeftTaylor MarshTBoggthe carpetbagger reportThe Huffington PostThe Moderate Voicethe next hurrahThe Reality-Based CommunityThe Side ShowThe Talent Showthe young turksTheHeretikUnqualifiedOfferingsWhiskey Fire Voters Evolt, Description: (a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war)

Added on: 28-May-2005 All Hat and No Cattle Description: (a daily antidepressant for political turmoil)

Added on: 05-Mar-2006 Description: (anti-Bush blog by Caleb Hayes, a 14-year-old politically astute commentator)

Added on: 20-Mar-2005 Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush Description: (a national teach-in sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights - to share their case, what’s at stake, and what impeachment means for every American - you can find a teach-in in your neighborhood, town, or city - or you can sign-up to host a teach-in)

Added on: 08-Jun-2006 Description: (where were you in '72? - most of us remember...Bush does not...)

Added on: 23-Apr-2005Beat Bush blog Description: (dedicated to removing George W. Bush, the worst president in history, from office)

Added on: 05-Mar-2006 Billionaires for Bush - You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Job Description: (humor - a grassroots network of corporate lobbyists, decadent heiresses, Halliburton CEOs, and other winners under George W. Bush's economic policies - headquartered in Wall Street and with over 60 chapters nationwide, we'll give whatever it takes to ensure four more years of putting profit over people - after all, we know a good president when we buy one)

Added on: 23-Apr-2005 Bluetooth Users Against Bush Description: (uses Bluetooth enabled devices (mobile phones, PDA's, laptop computers) to create moments of ad-hoc solidarity for people opposed to George W. Bush and his disastrous policies)

Added on: 24-Mar-2005 Boycott Bush Description: (call on consumers who oppose any or all of Bush's activities to boycott the brands of his main supporters until they publicly call on him to support the Kyoto protocol, and cease all political funding of the current administration until he does so)

Added on: 23-Apr-2005 Buck Fush Description: (Bush's next screw-up is just hours away)Added on: 05-Mar-2006 Rate this SiteSelect Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [ Next Page >> ]


In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

Freedom of speech extends to statements with which we may disagree, including those that are hateful, defiant, and contemptuous. This means the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea just because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable


The First Amendment does not protect speech that “create[s] a clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent.”

These are the words of the Supreme Court in 1919.When can free speech present a clear and present danger? To the government? To individuals?
Fighting Words, or Words that are Likely to Cause a Breach of the Peace:
The First Amendment does not protect words and expressions which are considered provocative by general consent. This includes hateful speech.
In 1942, the Supreme Court stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words" that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment.

The Court defined these as words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."


The First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes dishonestyintended to defame or damage the reputation of a person or an organization.Libel is written and slander is spoken; both are false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.


The First Amendment does not protect speech that is obscene.In 1973, the Supreme Court decided three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered obscene:

1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to prurient interests?
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests:The First Amendment does not protect speech that conflicts with other compelling interests.

For example, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

What are some other examples of “compelling interests?”

Who should decide when a compelling interest merits limiting free speech?

Slander is a spoken defamation. Defamation or "defamation of character," is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. There are attorneys who specialize in defamation lawsuits.

You can find a listing of specialists in your area at AttorneyPages.comView All General Libel and Slander Law Questions Pages, Next Page »« Post Your Case, Comment/Revise This Page »information General Libel and Slander Law Questions
What is ‘defamation’?
What is ‘slander’?
What is ‘libel’?

Can I sue someone who says or writes something defamatory about me?
Can libel suits be brought by a public figure?
What about insults and epithets? Are they defamatory?
Don't I have a right to express my opinion without fear of being sued for libel or slander?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Next Amendment
Table of Articles and Amendments
Overview of Full Constitution

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." "When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country.

That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States."--James Marcinkowski

If evidence now coming to light proves that Karl Rove was, indeed, behind the outing of Valerie Plame, he has outdone himself this time. This bit of handiwork goes beyond his usual dirty tricks. It goes beyond a mere crime. If the allegations are true, Rove has committed treason. It is just as simple and brazen and obvious (like the agenda of this administration) as that. Is that the problem? Is it just too simple and brazen and obvious that people refuse to digest it?

Below the entire testimony of James Marcinkowski July 22, 2005:

What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people.

Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan "dust-up" between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the American people. No government official has that right.

For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand some fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be infiltrated or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police department in any city, has undercover officers--spies, that use "cover."

To operate under "cover" means you use some ruse to cloak both your identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out any operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A police officer performing "street buys" uses a "light" cover, meaning he or she could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate only at night and during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk job in the police station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made to infiltrate a crime syndicate, visiting the local police station or drinking with fellow FBI agents after work may be out of the question.

In any scenario, your cover, no matter what the degree, provides personal protection and safety. But it does not end there. Cover is also used to protect collection methodology as well as any innocent persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with, such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government officials.

While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also provides security for that officer's informants or agents. In most human intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by a CIA officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is mutually dependent.

A case officer cannot be identified as working for the CIA, just as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working for the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or agent is exposed as working for the CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA officer has been identified as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed, his or her agents or informants are exposed. In all cases, the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or her own personal safety but that of the agents or assets as well.

The exposure of Valerie Plame's cover by the White House is the same as the local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of its undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension. An informant in a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of losing more than just their ability to operate.

Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost.

So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief identified the names of the department's undercover officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters, would be asked to retire.

And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame's cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable....

And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect human intelligence.

But the problem lies not only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets.

I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in some far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because "promises of protection" will no longer carry the level of trust they once had.

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear--politics in this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political "success" in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere "paper-pusher," or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the "degree" of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the "I'm ok, you're ok" politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don't care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security.

When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously.

Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States.

It has been reported that the release of this officer’s identity was not deliberate. How can anyone even pretend that the disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity to a reporter could be done by accident? The fact is that the release of this Information by “senior officials” was deliberate and done for a purpose.

It is equally clear that the purpose of these “senior officials” was certainly not to advance the national security of the United States.

Reasonable minds cannot differ as to the deliberate nature of this action by these “senior officials.” (Anyone who would care to try to portray this action as merely negligent, as opposed to deliberate, should also be prepared to explain how anyone so completely inept as to divulge this information by accident ever became a “senior official” in any organization, let alone an organization running the country.)

We are infantilized. The snake-charming despots who rule America—who endeavor to rule the world—have succeeded in maintaining us in a state of suspended animation—not quite adult, not quite human.

They can lie us into war and tell us they love freedom (like George W., the cowardly draft-dodging warmonger). They can torture in our name for the sake of our oil supplies and their profits.

Cynical Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices collude in the fabrications, shake their heads, blame the U.N. A Murdoch-fearing, kowtowing media pimp the lies and bury the information that replenishes democracy. Freedom without wisdom is a tree without roots. Intent to impose our brand of “freedom” abroad, we allow it to wither in the home of the brave.

Electoral politics cannot succeed in this kind of climate, where a sleeping, narcotized public is deluged with mis- and disinformation.

Our Constitution defines treason as the levying of war against our nation. With its policy of preemptive wars, this Administration is guilty of instigating wars against our nation. Every other nation must now seek to defend itself against our PNAC - (Project for a New American Century) professed hegemonic machinations. This Administration is guilty of treason and must be brought to heel. For the sake of global security and our nation’s survival and integrity.

Back in ’75 there were attorneys like William Kunstler who could make the case for impeachment and prosecution for treason better than I have here. We still had a Democratic Party with vestiges of the spirit and integrity that had stood up to Capitalist bosses, steeling itself with the Progressive message of solidarity and equality. The country was not held hostage to the crusading fanaticism of religious zealots and jingoists.

Our writers sang “the body electric” of the human family and did not first and foremost advocate for personal grants in the name of the identity-politics of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation. There were moments when we all came together and sang the possibilities of a glowing, new dawn.

What will it take to waken from slumber; to cast off the shackles of infantilization; to rise above the cheap sentimentalism of pseudo-patriotism; to reclaim the vision of Paine; to do our duty to ourselves, our progeny, our planet?And nothing I cared, at my sky blue trades, that time allows In all his tuneful turning so few and such morning songs Before the children green and golden Follow him out of grace.

On July 4th, the United States of America celebrates a blatant act of treason. On this day some 230 years ago, fifty-six rebels representing a revolting populace signed their name on the Declaration of Independence, a document whose sole purpose was to deny the crown’s authority in the colonies. Treason1 is defined as a “[v]iolation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it.” It is a crime punishable by death. Treason is perceived as a detestable action and perpetrators are generally regarded with justifiable ire.

And yet we celebrate.

The Declaration of Independence had no purpose beyond its obvious treachery. It “dissolve[d] the Political Bands” between the thirteen colonies and cited the sitting monarch for “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations,” but it did not create any new government – a constitution performing that function was ratified 2 some twelve years later in 1788 – nor did this Declaration provide any substantive solutions to the problems it laid out. The only real change this document instigated is explained in its last paragraph:

[T]hese United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States…they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.

The Declaration was a letter from several disgruntled but prominent leaders and representatives to a perceived tyrant; a few meager protectorates foolishly playing god to the world superpower.

And yet we celebrate.

To explain this apparent dichotomy, and justify the hot dogs and fireworks, some retreat to the tired phrase that “the winners write the history books.” 3 This philosophy is little more then a conspiracy theory and ignores the fact that today’s historians generally agree 4 on the events surrounding the revolutionary war. Even the signers of the Declaration recognized the gravity of the action they were taking as they “mutually pledge[d]” their “Lives…Fortunes, and…sacred Honor.” They knew they were committing treason and the British government did not view the founding fathers as the visionaries we idealize today, but rather as treacherous rebels deserving of capital punishment. That solemn vow was not empty rhetoric; the Crown caught up 5 to several of the signers, killing nine, capturing five, looting the estates of eighteen and dramatically affecting the lives of all of them.

July 4th is an opportunity to reflect on the difficult decisions that our forefathers faced. Was the treason justified? As Christians and law-abiding citizens, what sort of tyranny would rationalize the Founders’ action?

Government’s principle occupation is to preserve the rights of the citizens. To preserve these rights, defenses and armies are formed, laws are made and violators punished. When the current government oversteps its purpose – uses its armies overly aggressively, passes abusive laws or punishes cruelly – citizens have the authority to establish a new government. Marquis de Lafayette 6, a French soldier and hero of the American Revolution, explained this obligation better saying that 7:

When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.

The signers felt that the authority of government was legitimized by the consent of the governed. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “[t]he will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government.” Every regime – whether a democracy, republic, despotism or even theocracy – rests on the willingness of the populace to submit. Even a violent monarch rules only through the fear-instilled approval of the governed.

The Founders firmly believed this and therefore felt inaction and acceptance would be a worse path than treason. The signers’ considered it their duty to challenge the “long Train of Abuses and Usurpations” and eventually establish a fair and just government of their own.

On July 4th we celebrate the wisdom of that decision.

Rising from the ashes of injustice was a standard of justice so absolute, not even its advocates could always adhere to it, but so durable, it has survived conflict and hardship over more than 200 years of history.

Today we observe a Declaration of Independence that did more than just sever the bonds with Great Britain; we recognize a document that laid the groundwork for an unprecedented respect for liberty and limited government.

We commemorate the legacy of this treason and the nation it spawned. We rejoice in the freedoms we enjoy, largely because of the idealism reflected in this document and the willingness of fifty-six leaders to risk everything to do their duty.

It is ironic that a nation of laws would begin with such a deliberate act of treason. The Founders were justified in their conclusion that their sacred obligation outweighed the unfounded authority of King George III. Because of their boldness, we have America today. That’s worth celebrating.

He would have warned: "If the liberties of America are ever completely ruined, of which in my opinion there is now the utmost danger, it will in all probability be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence, which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most destructive tendency for the sake of present ease. When designs are formed to raze the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery.

They are alarmed at nothing so much, as attempts to awaken the people to jealousy and watchfulness; and it has been an old game played over and over again, to hold up the men who would rouse their fellow citizens and countrymen to a sense of their real danger, and spirit them to the most zealous activity in the use of all proper means for the preservation of the public liberty, as 'pretended patriots,' 'intemperate politicians,' rash, hot-headed men, incendiaries, wretched desperadoes, who, as was said of the best of men, would turn the world upside down, or have done it already."

He would have reminded: "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember, that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event."

Samuel Adams knew the stakes are high: "Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty."



Organizations and individuals interested in joining should contact us. Blogs are encouraged to join coalition member Big Brass Alliance. There are no membership dues except a commitment to lobby your congress member.

Please contact us if you have been in touch with us about your organization but it does not yet appear here.

Gold Star Families for Peace

Veterans for Peace

Iraq Veterans Against the War

US Tour of Duty: Iraq Veterans and Military Families Demand the Truth

Military Families Against the War (UK)


Progressive Democrats of America

Global Exchange

Code Pink

California for Democracy

Justice Through Music

Stop the War Coalition (UK)

Bedford Stop the War (UK)

Truthtelling Project

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Citizens for Legitimate Government

VA Grassroots

Montgomery County, MD Progressive Alliance

Orange County, CA Grassroots

Sacramento, CA for Democracy

Progressive Democrats of America, VA

Democracy Rising

Velvet Revolution

Do Not Concede

Peace Majority

Backbone Campaign

Impeach Central

Impeach Bush Meetup

Grassroots Northshore, Milwaukee, WI

Fox Valley, IL Citizens for Peace and Justice

Historians Against the War

Chester County, PA Peace Movement

Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Palo Alto, PA

Environmentalists Against War

Birmingham, AL Democracy for America Meetup

Radical Sages

Lake Merritt Neighbors Organized for Peace, Oakland, CA

World Prout Assembly

Democratic Renewal

Liberal KidsUnderground

NoAZ Vote

Toronto Coalition to Stop the War (Canada)


Military Free Zone

Peace Action, WI

NW Progressive Institute

Election Solar Bus

Independent Progressive Politics Network

Stop the War (UK)

Skagit County Green Party

Gap Sucks

Earth Island Institute

Think Blue Dems

A Bigger Tent

South Mountain Peace Action, Montclair, NJ

Bring Democracy Back

Unitarian Universalist Peace and Justice Group, Nantucket, MA

East Cobb Democratic Alliance, Cobb County, GA

Patriots for Gore

Clothing of the American Mind

United for Veterans, Wayne, MI

One Global Community

Louisiana Activist Network

Northeast Georgia Peace Corner Group, Helen, GA

Bird Dogger

People's Email Network

Out of Iraq

Why Are We Back in Iraq?


Bring Them Home

Global Resistance Network

Mission Not Accomplished

Blue State News Only

Coalition Against Election Fraud

San Diego for Democracy

Summit County (OH) Progressive Democrats

Taking the Fight to Karl

The Left Wing

Cities for Peace

Michigan Peace Works

Leader of the Free Word

Democracy ActionDC Anti-War Network

Progressive Action Alliance

True Blue Liberal

Earth Day

Northwest Ohio Peace Coalition

One Million Reasons

Not in Our Name

Republicans for Humility

Peace Action

Veterans for Peace, Chapter 27

Boston Mobilization

MWC News

Upbeat Defiance

Downtown Magazine

Playing in Traffic

Bring Em Home

Voters Evolt

Progressive Action Center

TV News Lies

Truth Empowered

United Blue USA

Bring Them Home

Coalition for Impeachment Now (COIN)

Children of Iraq Association

The Known UnKnowns

CampU.S. Strike for Peace Campaign


Citizens for Accountability on Iraq

Carolina Peace Resource Center

Green Party of Clallam Co.WA.

The Hip Hop Caucus


Operation Cease Fire

Underground Action Alliance

Summit County Progressive Democrats

Students Towards a New Direction (STAND)

Eastern Long Island Democracy for AmericaLatinos for America

Impeach Bush Coalition

Butterfly Gardeners Association

Be the ChangePolitics and Art

Central Colorado Coalition on the Iraq War

Patrick Henry Democratic Club

Musicians and Fine Artists for World Peace

America In Solidarity

Consumers for Peace

American Worker

Patriotic Pulse

Project for the OLD American Century

LIBERTY TREE Foundation for the Democratic Revolution

Vet Gulf March

Voters Evolt

Springs Action Alliance

International Socialist Organization

Voters for Peace

Environmentalists Against War

U.S. Peace Council

Grandmothers for Peace

Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran

World Can't Wait

The Rational Response Squad

Idriss Stelley Foundation

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Students for Impeachment

Six Three Five

Michael Moore Online

Citizens for Peace & Justice of Medford, Oregon

Arizona Christian Peacemakers

Impeach Bush Cheney Net

Bake Sales for Body Armor

Detroit and Michigan National Lawyers Guild

Grandmothers Against the War

Bike for Peace

Bush Free Zone

Armbands for Peace

Voice International

UC Nuclear Free

Political Cooperative

Agir contre la guerre (France)

Americans Against the War (France)

Muslims for Peace (Australia)

Peace Movement Aotearoa

Not in Our Name Aotearoa New Zealand


Bloomington Peace Action Coalition

People's Glorious Five Year Plan

Action Center for Justice

Canada Watch

Peace Drum

Arms Against War


Become Active

Impeachable Treason

St. Pete for Peace

ECU Peace and Justice

Operation Impeachment

Rescue Our Democracy

National Lawyers Guild, Chicago chapter

Alliance Marxist-Leninist

School of the Americas Watch

Team BioImpeach for Peace

Boston Tea Party

Marijuana Policy Project

Ohio Progressive Action Coalition

North Jersey Impeach Group

Impeach Bush TV

Green Delaware

Grass Roots Impeachment Movement

The File

Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International

Impeach for Peace - Marshall, TX

Justice for Bush

PDA - Hawaii

Peace Resource

Liberal Democracy Alliance

Olympia Citizens' Movement to Impeach Bush/Cheney

Envision a New America

US Peace Memorial

The Paragraph

Bike for Peace

Million Musicians March

We the People Network

Bike for Peace No War

The Armchair Activist
Partial List of Individual Members (institutions appear for identification purposes only)


Aaron Fogl, former Marine, Tom Krebsbach, Vietnam veteran, Brier, WA James Starowicz, Vietnam veteran, Kannapolis, NC, John H. St. John, World War II veteran, Alan A. Nakamura, veteran, Carol Korreck, member, Military Families Speak Out, Lietta and Arthur Ruger, members, Military Families Speak Out, with two combat Iraq Veteran loved ones facing second deployments in Iraq, Impeachster Days Walt Kosty, James Vaughn, Elaine Supkis, Madeleine Begun Kane, Dahlia Wasfi, Linda McCarthy, Chair of the Democratic Committee in Derry, NH. One Veteran's Voice, Brad Newsham, Oakland, Calif., Liberal Girl Nextdoor, W. Terry Leichner, RN, Marine combat veteran of Vietnam, Vietnam Veterans Against the War activist since 1971 in Denver, Pamela Kraemer Garett , L.Reppenhagen, Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, IVAW Member, Former Sniper of the 1st Infantry Division, Prisons and Torture in Iraq, Two-Edged Sword, Thomas Floyd Band, Empires Fall, He Has No Mandate.,, Schalow's Headline NewsGeorge W. Bush Impeachment Handbook,, Downing Street Action NC

Daniel Ellsberg, director, Truth Telling Project, Ann Wright, career Foreign Service officer; former Deputy Chief of Mission, Mongolia Marcus Raskin, co-founder of the Institute for Policy Studies, David Sirota, writer and political consultant, Bernard Chazelle, professor of computer science, Princeton University, William Rivers Pitt, author and journalist, Lawrence Velvel, dean, Massachusetts School of Law, Al Feldstein, artist, former editor, MAD Magazine, Jill Sobule, recording artist, Rahul Mahajan, author and activist, Paul Rogat Loeb, author, John Gideon, voting activist and writer, Larisa Alexandrovna, poet and journalist, David MacMichael, member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) steering committee, Grace Reid, researcher and writer, Dana Briggs, national board director, Veterans for Peace, Kirkland, WA, Cindy Bogard, professor, Hofstra University, Joel Wendland, managing editor, Political Affairs magazine; member, UAW Local 1981, David Michael Green, professor of political science, Hofstra University, Robert Shetterly, artist and author, Americans Who Tell the Truth, Dave Lindorff, author, Dennis Mansker, author, Roger Drowne, artist, David Morrison, author (UK), John McConnell, Founder of Earth Day, Mark Drolette, political satirist, Larry Johnson,Vivian Greentree, journalist,Coco Tralla, Tralla Productions, ,Brad Newsham, author: All the Right Places, Take Me With You; initiator: The Impeachment Pledge Mark Whitecage, Joaquin Ramon Herrera, author, Lynn's Lair.

Big Brass Alliance

Black Commentator

Thom Hartmann

Outrage Radio

Radio News America


The Brad Show


Cooperative Research

Rapid Response Network

Eyes of Babylon

MWC News Magazine

Talk Left

Online Journal

Mavarot News

Alien Love

Radio Left

Patriot Daily


Stroll Thither

OpEd News

War Times / Tiempo de Guerras


FlyBy News

Really News

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches

Doug Ireland

Gabriele Zamparini

Cage Prisoners

Today in Iraq

Empire Burlesque

Liberty Stickers

Page One Q

Defend USA

Bush Is to Blame

Middlemost Post

Adeeb Media

Adeeb Press

Index Research

Car Magnets


Wide Minded Liberal

Distorted Soul

Citizens Advisory

Radio News America


This Can't Be Happening

Counter Punch

The Young Turks

Atlanta Progressive News

City Sites

Liberty News TV

Top Ten Sources

The New Press

Protest News

Progressive Talk Stevens Point

Regressive Antidote

COA News - Independent News Portal

Impeachment Channel
LINKS: [1][2][3] [4] [5] [6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59][60][61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84][85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121][122] [123] [124] [125][126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143][144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164][165] [166] [167] [168][169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176][177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183][184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200][201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215][216] [217][218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236][237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245][246] [247] [248][249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262][263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273][274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300][301] [302][302] [304] [305] [306]]

The Final Rendering Of The Decision and Opinion Of This Court of Impeachment and War Crimes

TREASON: Definition

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The only time, and it was circumstance defined and fueled by events and issues extant at the moment, that this nation ever considered the possibility that speech could be treasonous was in the “Red Scare” era of Joseph McCarthy. That association or linkage was made because it was “understood/accepted” that Communists advocated the violent over throw of existing legitimate governments. We have dealt with that time and that matter in our discourse. The inclinations and advocacy of Mr. McCarthy were rejected as abusive of the American system, and though some neocon-like very authoritarian minded “citizens” has endeavored in part to reform, remake Mr. McCarthy, we must reject those efforts with our absolute contempt.

Nothing written in this blog site advocates waging war against this nation. Nothing in this blog site suggests or implies an adherence to, or giving aid and comfort to the enemies, or those “defined/identified” as enemies, (Terrorists), of The United States.

The word “TREASON” as applied to, or at least by implication to this author’s writing of (IMPEACHMENT: and peace: March On The Pentagon March 17th Update(Friday, February 23, 2007), in any way remotely resembles language or advocacy akin to treason.

Further, given legal precedent, and sufficient case law based upon such charges in emotionally charged, rarified time periods, the word as applied has brought a necessary consideration and clarification of the applicable yardsticks of measuring for language and intent that clearly needs to be scrutinized in terms of libel, slander, defamation and applicable decency standards. There are serious problems here that will not be over looked.

Assertions of a mission of “protection” of the Vietnam Memorial from desecration by the March 17th Protest participants fall on deaf ears as self-serving, self aggrandizing folly. No one has any intent of defiling any property or denigrating anyone’s honor. Such shabby foolishness need not be taken seriously. You have a perfect right to stand there as an “Honor Guard”. We will respect that right, though would suggest that your time and energy might be better, more productively and constructively utilized by joining the line of March in the preservation of today’s Eagles!

If you choose not to recognize or acknowledge the illegitimacy of the Iraq War, the blatant disregard of this nation’s laws, the wholesale disregard of our own Constitution, the constant violation of all international law, the authoritarian Fascist creep being nurtured by this administration, the degradation of both the reputation and dignity of this nation, the unforgivable disregard of this nation’s citizens needs and their will as expressed at the polls, the “Flock Manipulation of millions”, and can find nothing better to do in the name of the restoration and preservation of this nation, you are entitled to that right.

This court would suggest, however, that there are more meaningful steps you could be taking in your homage of those who have died for this nation, and are yet to do so in the name of George W. Bush. I can only say, as for me: Not on my ground; Not in my town; Not in my name!

I have taken the time to fashion this rather lengthy response to your few lines, not only as they are a troubling example of expression, but they have crossed a line I do not permit people to cross without response and action. I have been here too often and seen this too frequently in my life time and I will not tolerate this thoughtless abuse!

“Responsible agents of the civil society must take notice and respond within the bounds of law and efficacy; and ultimately, that civil society, through its responsible, concerned agents, must compel both statutory and common law to address those who would use the Internet to either incite individuals or abuse them in the belief that the anonymity of the Internet is such that only the most outrageous of verbal assaults or criminal of actions will elicit a legal response.

While I agree with Voltaire that: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death, your right to say it.”; I also believe in, and live by the words of Thomas Jefferson as regards the substance and issues embodied in this post, to wit: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man!”

In this man’s eye, the abuse of the word “TREASON” to impugn one’s integrity, or to call into question one’s motives, by implication, and attempts to sully one’s right to free candid and honest speech, will always be viewed as speech typical of those inclined to authoritarian Fascist-like rule as opposed to the purity of Democracy to which this writer is dedicated.

I find there is nothing in your expression of disapproval that constitutes a departure on my part from my positions, nothing that is inconsistent with my original publication of those purposes, premises, principles and promises set forth at the creation of this blog. They are reiterated below:


This Blog shall be dedicated to the most current of American Issues: Social, Political, Economic, Moral, and Ethical within our society with special emphasis given to the actions, current and pending, of the Congress and The Supreme Court Of The United States.

Its’ primary purpose(s) shall be to inform in as factual a manner as is possible. No opinion will be offered without substantiation by fact(s), and no argument of persuasion will be sat forth without factual basis and reasoning.


Every individual, regardless of race, creed, age_able or infirm, socio-economic status, intellectual ability, educational level, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, language, ethnicity, national origin and of every human condition/circumstance are all equal before the law, and as such all are entitled to the equal protections of and enjoyment of such privileges as shall emanate from those laws.

All humanity are entitled to be treated with respect and extended the same measure of dignity that we all expect to be accorded.

In War and in Peace, in tranquility or crisis, all people(s) should be treated with decency as is generally understood and universally accepted in any simple standard of right and wrong. In those instances when matters under consideration shall be those related to warfare; this blog shall accept, without exception, hesitation or any attempt to evade or dismiss those standards of human treatment set forth in the provisions of The Geneva Conventions. Further all attempts to circumvent, pervert, ignore, dismiss, and explain away applicability will be viewed with suspicion and probable rejection.

That while we shall always hold that all citizens of the Earth are entitled to the rights of free speech, expression in its multitude of forms and mediums, and freedom of the press, as legitimate and rightful means of conveying ones thoughts, beliefs, values and opinions; we shall equally hold that, while one has the legitimate right to attempt to persuade, convince others of the correctness, desirability of same, by force of logic and argument, no one has the right, to even attempt to, by force of arms or enactment of statute(s) to impose any substance or content of any ones core being that emanates from the words: “I Believe” upon another.

I will respect your right to believe anything and say anything within the boundaries of law and decency, but inherent in the very words “I Believe” exists the right to say “I Do Not Believe”, and as I believe I do not have the right to impose my belief system upon another, so I believe, and shall act upon the notion that no one else has the right to impose their belief system upon another.

In similar fashion, as I will defend strenuously our every right provided by our laws and as understood to exist as a matter of custom and tradition, I shall not ignore that inherent in every right we hold, cherish and enjoy is an accompanying responsibility and the right and responsibilities are inextricably interwoven as common threads in the cloth of our cultural fabric. Remove one set of threads and you have a useless rag.

We hold the view that in this nation, we are all the rightful heirs of the vision, principles, rights, duties, and responsibilities as are articulated in The Declaration Of Independence, and that this author holds that document to be the primary cornerstone of our history, heritage and law.

We further hold that every inhabitant of The United States is entitled to the full protection and enjoyment of all rights provided in and inherent of The Constitution Of The United States Of America as may from time-to-time be amended and/or interpreted/applied, and are obligated to obey that document, so long as that document is never utilized or corrupted in such fashion as to impose upon any inhabitant(s) of these United States moral value, standards or practices given rise a singular source deriving or rising from the words: “I believe”.

Should such a condition become extant, it is the position of this author that the historical trail and sentiment and philosophical permissions granted by The Declaration of Independence must prevail in the sanctions of resistance and rebellion, noncompliance and rejection of and to such corruptions of the sanctity of The Constitution. Such an event would require as a duty of citizenship, active resistance, rebellion and refusal to honor or obey such wrongful provisos.

Like the Rose that shall never bloom in the snows of winter, this author adheres, as a matter of belief, founded in historical study and life experience, to the reasoned principle that no government or people can effectively or rightfully legislate morality. One may legislate one can and cannot do, but no one can legislate acceptance of an act or statute founded in a faith based belief.

Guided by adherence to the “Principle of an Absolute Separation of Church and State”, that all matters of religion/faith are private matters, I will hold that when ever any religious institution crosses that line and enters the secular arena, abandoning its respect for the separation as demonstrated by the legitimate teaching of its theology and ministry to its flock, where the clergy exercises “A Political Pulpit”, that, that particular church or institution surrenders, at that moment, the several special privileges/provisions and exemptions of law afforded said institutions, including but limited to freedom from taxation.

This blog shall always be dedicated to the finest purist definitions of Life, Liberty, Equality, Justice, Freedom, The Pursuit of Happiness, always mindful of the fact that in this life there are no absolutes, that our Free society is dependent upon an informed involved citizenry, always vigilant and prepared to repel the incursion of government or individuals upon the rights of even a minority of one.

As I will leave your expression of complaint posted, so I challenge you to leave this posted as demonstration of your equal commitment to free speech and open dialog as part of a necessary national discourse.

Having checked your “extreme right wing site” before ending this I suspect you will not be so inclined, but for my readers, you will find and be able to judge “Ms. Muldraker” and THE DRONE DUST have just found there for yourself! URL Follows:


No comments: