Monday, April 24, 2006


128 Days and Counting

Today was the day for the House of Representatives to impeach a Republican President to be on track with their schedule for impeaching a Democratic President. Actually, they were already three days late, but I gave them the weekend off.

Even with an extension, they failed the test. As Claude Rains said in Casablanca, "I'm shocked; shocked to find out that there's politics being played here!" Actually, it's really more of a criminal conspiracy between two branches of government to defraud the American people. The President of the United States has broken the law and his Republican allies in the House of Representatives are aiding and abetting his crimes.

This is truly a sad day for the United States.

Saturday, April 22, 2006


126 Days and Counting

None of the Republican members of the House of Representatives that I have contacted have taken the time to inform me why they refuse to do their duty as elected officials and Impeach the President of the United States for his admitted violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many arguments have been put forth by people who are paid to defend the President, but I had not heard one word from the only people in this Republic tasked with and capable of holding Bush accountable for violating the laws of the land. Until today.

The rationale for dereliction of duty can be found in Chabot: Impeach talk a joke by Michael Collins which appeared in today's Cincinnati Post.
The last time there was a move to impeach the president, [Steve] Chabot was on the front lines. The Cincinnati Republican was one of 13 House managers in charge of presenting to the Senate the case for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

Chabot may have been one of the lead players in the Clinton impeachment, but he finds all of this talk about impeaching Bush rather disturbing. No, make that downright ridiculous.

For starters, he said, no one has determined that Bush actually broke the law. Even legal scholars disagree on whether Bush's domestic spying program was illegal.
This is the Primary Lie put forward by the defenders of Presidential criminality. FISA is clear on its face, and Bush has just as clearly admitted to violating FISA. What "legal scholars" are disagreeing about is any possible defense that might be presented (in the Senate) after Bush is charged (impeached by the House) with violating FISA.
Attempting to remove a president from office is a serious matter that should never be politically motivated, Chabot said.

There is, in fact, a huge difference between Clinton's misdeeds and what Bush is accused of, Chabot said.

"The difference," Chabot said, "is this: You had President Clinton who lied under oath, who perjured himself, who clearly committed a crime. We had a definite breaking of the law, and I feel that nobody should be above the law.
This is the Secondary Lie presented by the defenders of Presidential criminality which they use to prop up the first. These liars know how to make something sound strong (definite breaking of the law) when they play prosecutor but soft (alleged perjury and alleged obstruction of justice) when they play defense. Chabot knows that no one has to prove that Bush violated FISA before he can be impeached, they only have to allege it. Despite all his bluster, that's all Chabot did to Clinton back in '98:
On December 19, 1998, voting essentially on party lines, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment: Article I, which alleged perjury before the grand jury, passed by a vote of 228 to 206 and Article III, which alleged obstruction of justice, passed by a vote of 221 to 212.
(from Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton)
In summation, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if violation of 18 USC 1623 is a crime, then violation of 50 USC 1809 is a crime; if a Republican controlled House of Representatives can impeach William J. Clinton for a crime (alleged) then they can also impeach George W. Bush for a crime (alleged). I rest my case.

Friday, April 21, 2006


125 Days and Counting

As you know, the do-nothing Republican congress should have impeached Bush by today. For some reason, however, they thought they needed a vacation (in faithful imitation of their beloved President) so I gave them until Monday to get the job STARTED.

In the meantime, my friends have been telling me that I have to broaden the scope of my blog. So here are two current event items (that don't discuss violation of FISA) from today's news. Watch Neil Young Explain Why Bush Needs To Be Impeached... on Showbiz Tonight and President Bush Stands Up for Free Speech by Standing Up by Bob Cesca. The main argument in both pieces is the value of free speech rather than the issue of impeachment.

But, try as I may, I can't close without one shot across the bow of the Administration's pirate galley. From yesterday's we have Getting America Ready for Recovery From The Right Wing's Devastation by Rob Call. Assuming that the current Congress continues to avoid its responsibility to impeach, we might have the following scenario:
Once the 2007 congress is under way, if the Dems manage to eke out a majority in both houses, they should start impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney. The proceedings may not work, but one goal should be to immobilize and castrate Bush and his toxic whitehouse, including Cheney. If both Bush and Cheney can be impeached, then the Democratic Speaker of the house will become president. That will make for some interesting jockeying on the House floor. For all we know, a senior congressman like John Murtha could become president.
Take that, me hearties!

Thursday, April 20, 2006


124 Days and Counting

I've been arguing with my friend Troll from Philadelphia about why guys like him are so willing to give their elected officials a pass when they systematically 1) break some laws (FISA) and 2) fail to enforce other laws (immigration). Now I've found a real American hero (and one that I wouldn't have expected).

It's Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Today (as reported on Chertoff said:
[W]hat we're focused on is not just individual cases involving a single violator here or a single violator there, but actually looking at those people who adopt, as a business model, the systematic violation of United States law.
Chertoff said the government plans to "come down as hard as possible and break the back" of those organizations.
I will feel really secure in my homeland when Secretary Chertoff goes after all those criminals in the Bush administration that have made a business model out of ignoring United States laws that they find inconvenient!

Tuesday, April 18, 2006


121 Days and Counting

I found this piece in last Saturday's Albuquerque Tribune where V. B. Price reminds us that No recent president has a scandal sheet as lengthy as Bush's.
Imagine Nixon or Clinton engaging in massive, electronic, warrantless spying on Americans, in direct opposition to a law Congress passed to protect us from just that. Could they have lasted a moment longer than it takes to say "impeachment"? Absolutely not. And then Bush's attorney general says it isn't beyond possibility for the government to electronically spy on all Americans.

If it weren't for a GOP-controlled House and Senate, would this president still be in office?
We know for sure that, if Bush were Clinton he would be impeached by this Friday!

Saturday, April 15, 2006


118 Days and Counting

As Bush Supporters, War Opponents, Plan Weekend Events In Crawford Area, it's good to know that not all Texans agree with my friend Chas from Dallas.

Go to today's Dallas Morning News (subscription req'd) Letters for Saturday 08:04 AM CDT on Saturday, April 15, 2006, and scoll down to:
Where's the outrage?

Re: "Tehran's Threat – Iraq war complicates our dealings with Iran," Wednesday Editorials.

It is astounding that this editorial finally admits that the Iraq war was prompted by an administration that ignored intelligence estimates warning that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Instead of a resounding demand for the resignation or impeachment of President Bush and his guard, you tell us we have a right to be skeptical of the administration's ability to correctly judge and prepare for the contingencies of a Middle East war. You conclude that prior miscalculations make it more difficult for the president to rally the nation and the world to deal with the Iranian menace.

Miscalculations my foot! If there ever were high crimes and misdemeanors in our nation's history, they are now at hand. Have you no sense of outrage for the incredible carnage that this administration has caused?

Raymond McQueen, Dallas

Will the prediction of Chas from Dallas (Impeachment will begin on April 21, 2006) come true? Keep watching this space to find out!

Tuesday, April 11, 2006


115 Days and Counting

We are closing in on Day 124 which will arrive on April 21, 2006. The significance of Day 124 is explained in my posting on Day 8 (Sunday, December 25, 2005) when I wrote the following, inspired by my friend Chas (Jeremiah's Helper) in Dallas, Texas.
Last Tuesday I told Chas I was going to create this blog based on the question "how many days will it take for a Republican Congress to Impeach a Republican President?"

Chas replied, "Probably just as long as it took a Republican congress to impeach a Democratic one!"
Since our Do Nothing (except break the law) Republican Congress will be ON VACATION on Friday, April 21, 2006, I'll give them an extension (not an amnesty) until Monday, April 24, 2006 to begin Impeachment proceedings!

Saturday, April 01, 2006


105 Days and Counting

It's official. The Republican National Committee officially endorses crime. It's no wonder their members of Congress also unanimously refuse to stop the criminal activity of the Bush administration. The following members of Congress support H. Res. 635 in the House / S. Res. 398 in the Senate:
H. Res. 635
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/31/2006
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 1/31/2006
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 12/22/2005
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/9/2006
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/31/2006
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/30/2006
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 2/7/2006
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/30/2006
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 2/7/2006
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 2/8/2006
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 12/22/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 2/1/2006
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 2/7/2006
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 2/7/2006
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 3/14/2006
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/31/2006
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-4] - 2/7/2006
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 2/14/2006
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 1/31/2006
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 2/1/2006
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 2/16/2006
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 1/31/2006
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 12/22/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 12/22/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 3/2/2006
Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 3/9/2006
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 1/31/2006
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/31/2006
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 2/16/2006
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/14/2006
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 12/22/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 12/22/2005
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 3/14/2006

S. Res. 398
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 3/16/2006
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 3/15/2006
Not one of them is a Republican.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?