Appeasers Redeem Yourselves -- Demand Impeachment!!!

[pat_k]

Bush loyalists are either (1) Fascists themselves, or (2) Fascist Dupes.

The Appeasers are the Anti-Fascists who understand that a fascist cabal has seized the massive power of the American Presidency, but who refuse rescue our constitutional democracy from annihilation by demanding Impeachment.

A vast majority of the Democratic Caucus are currently guilty of appeasement. If we are to help them to redeem our national soul, and themselves, we cannot mince words on this.

It is time for the Democratic members of the House and Senate who are running scared to muster the courage to stand up and demand Impeachment loud and clear, and to be counted by signing on as co-sponsors of Conyer's resolution to create a select committee or Fiengold's resolution to Censure.

Their oath to support and defend the Constitution demands it.

The battle will play out in Congress, but it is We the People who are the soldiers. It is up to us to make their duty clear. Bushcheney must be Impeached for their claims to, and exercise of, the unitary authoritarian power to

• terrorize Americans with threats of Mushroom clouds;


• commit war crimes;


• spy on citizens without a warrant; and


• rule by signing statement.

Unitary Authoritarian Power = Fascism

In the United States, the ONLY MORAL RESPONSE to a fascist executive
is to demand immediate Impeachment and removal.

Failure to do so is to appease the fascists.

Silence is complicity

It's pretty darn simple.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Visualize IMPEACHMENT.

The DO something to make it happen.

NGU.

[El Fuego]

2. First we impeach...

Then we take them to The Hague to try them for war crimes!

[pat_k]

3. Hear, Hear!! War Crimes are "above our paygrade" . . .

. . . When the nation truly come to terms with the truth, it will be crystal clear that we must hand the war criminals over to the world court(and the list is frightening long, starting with Geo. W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, David Addington, General Geoffrey Miller. . .)

However long it takes -- even if we have to seek posthumous judgment -- we must confront and come to grips with the truth as a nation.
And while we're at it, there are some hard truths this nation has yet to revisit, and come to terms with.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

[elocs]

4. Let's have an impeachment vote as soon as possible.

Then when it is defeated we can all congratulate ourselves on how noble, yet unrealistic we are. Let's just get it over with. It won't even be defeated along strict party lines because there surely will be those Democrats like Joe Lieberman or others who would vote against it. This is a simple math problem since the numbers are not there. Even if Bush is eventually impeached when and if the Democrats retake the House in November, he will never be convicted by the Senate because even if the Democrats win every Republican seat open for election along with Jefford's seat that would only be 60 votes to convict if every Democrat Senator voted for conviction. With that, which 7 or more Republicans would desert their party to vote for conviction?

If 9/11 was the neocons wet dream, then impeachment, even without conviction, is the wet dream of many Democrats. The difference is that 9/11 has already happened while impeachment and conviction never will. I realize this is heresy to many and that any difference of opinion among Democrats concerning impeachment is not allowed, but it is the stark reality. I totally agree that George Bush deserves to not only be impeached, but also convicted, and in a perfect world that would happen. This is not a perfect world and we should be more pragmatic about what we can do and there is much that can be done to Bush and to cripple him without impeachment. Also, I don't believe that Bush has any fear of being impeached and convicted. If impeachment occurs it will be painted by the Republicans as simply revenge and payback for Clinton and many Americans who are not Republicans will believe that accusation.

[pat_k]

6. Silence is complicity. The Congressional oath is an INDIVIDUAL oath . . .

. . .that demands each member to make a personal decision. The decision that faces each member (and those who seek to be members) right now is this: duty or complicity?

They have a duty to lobby their colleagues, but they are not responsible for the choices their colleagues make. Whether they stand alone, stand with a handful, or stand with a vast majority, it matters not.

Each day that members of Congress fail to carry out their sworn duty, George W. Bush can point to their failure to act as justification for his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to power (If he were nuking the Constitution, wouldn't more members of Congress, who are sworn to act, be demanding Impeachment?)

By providing cover, every member of Congress who fails to act (and every Candidate who fails to take a position that affirms the duty they will take on as a member of congress) is aiding and abetting Bush's efforts to suspend the principle of consent and unilaterally override our will.

--------------------------------
Predictions of futility are irrational

I am always mystified when people use predictions of futility to belittle those who stand on principle, or to rationalize their failure to do what principle demands of them.

Tragically, such defeatist and self-fulfilling beliefs create their own reality. People rationalize sitting on their hands, predicting the futility of action. Of course, in failing to act, they assure defeat, and thus the prognosticators of doom pat themselves on the back, saying "I told you so."

It is so mystifying because folks on our side take such pride in their their rationality, but is irrational to believe in ones own omniscience. Outcomes are never assured until events are behind us. To see the real possibilities before us, we must not succumb to irrational predictions of futility and doom.

------------------------------------
Republicans may beat us to the punch

Make no mistake; Republicans in the House may well beat the Democratic members to Impeachment. Some are already raising the question "Do we really want to bequeath unitary power to Hillary?"

They can have President Hastert now; or President Pelosi later.

That choice may be very simple for many of them. Fascists are happy to toss anybody overboard to hang onto power.

The sad thing is that the Fascists are relentless when it comes to accusing and punishing those they perceive as wrongdoers (even if the wrong they perceive is just plummeting poll numbers; not crimes.)

Anti-fascists on the other hand tend to want to "fix the system" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" -- rather then go after individual wrongdoers.

[ClassWarrior]

9. So the RW has convinced you that justice is "unrealistic?"

YOU worry about which accusations the Coulter-lovers will believe. The American people and I believe in doing the right thing.

NGU.

[pat_k]

10. "Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"

[elocs]

15. Just like Bush: "You're either with us or you are against us".

If you don't agree with the calls for impeachment right now, you are accused of being an appeaser or RW. Evidently there is a litmus test to be a true Democrat, and that is you have to agree with the calls for impeachment. But you can't wait for a couple of months and even now you are not operating in the reality of the real world. Sure, they may be impeachment, if, and only if, the Democrats retake the House, but there will be no conviction. That is reality. Good luck though in purging the Democratic Party of everybody who does not agree with the cries for impeachment--I'm sure that will be a big help in the long run.

[ClassWarrior]

21. Yeah, put words in my mouth. That says a lot about the strength...

...of your arguement.

Besides, we win just by calling for IMPEACHMENT. By making the RW criminals have to argue against it. Even if there is no conviction... even it there's no impeachment... we WIN just by putting it on the table.

Or we could dress up all pretty in our pink tutus and dance for the nice Nazis.

NGU.

[elocs]

30. I didn't say that you said it.

What I am saying is that the attitude of those who want impeachment right now toward those who think it is better to wait is to accuse them of dressing up in pink tutus and dancing for the nice Nazis. That is what I see and that is what I meant. I can understand your argument and stance without agreeing with it, unfortunately I don't see the same happening concerning impeachment. Have you ever considered that you might be mistaken or that maybe somebody else's argument might have some merit? No middle ground, or just your way which you insist is the right way.?

[pat_k]

35. So, rule by signing statement is AOK by you?

Just because "they" (conservatives, fascists, fascist dupes) often hide complex reality behind false dichotomies, it doesn't follow that all dichotomies are false.

We do the opposite and tend to make muddles of complexity out of things that in reality boil down to simple A or B choices.

Just as they are suspicious of complexity, we tend to be suspicious of simplicity, often telling ourselves "there must be more to it" when we run up against such black and white choices.

Well, there is no more to it in this instance.

You face a black and white choice. You can tolerate rule by signing statement, or you can object to it and call on members of Congress to put an end to it though Impeachment.

Members of Congress also face a black and white choice that is dictated by their oath. They must choose duty or complicity.

[elocs]

40. No, I am talking about the loud and constant calls for impeachment now.

Right now, about 2 months before the election. I realize this has gone on for some time any why people feel this way, but there is some thought and opinion now that the calls for impeachment now will motivate Republicans to get out their vote. The accusation is that Democrats want to win the House back so they can impeach Bush. There are also Independents who are bothered by this who might otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate. If impeachment has waited this long, the constant, loud, and sometimes shrill cries for impeachment can wait a couple of months. If you honestly look at the posts by some who are crying for impeachment hearings right now, they seen like they are going to have a spasm. What we may view as being simply passion, others may look at being over the top. If things go poorly for Democrats in November and one of the reasons cited is the calls for impeachment, then those who were the loudest in calling for it right before the election will deny it up and down just as Nader voters denied he hurt Gore in 2000.

OK, now be sure to read this: I believe that Bush deserves to not only be impeached, but convicted. I believe that Bush has done many, many terrible things which should motivate Democrats and Independents and even some Republicans to take back the houses this November which would give them the power to actually do something. I hope Bush is impeached because he deserves it, but also because there are those whose lives will be incomplete somehow it he is not impeached. We all honestly know that the odds that Bush would be convicted are slim and none. But also remember that things do not happen in a vacuum and that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Do you trust what Bush's reaction to being impeached may be? He will still be the Commander in Chief until 20 January 2009 and there are many horrible things he could still do regardless if the Congress is Democrat controlled. The oversight powers of a Democrat Congress will go a long way to keep Bush in check even without impeachment. I do hope, though, that call for impeachment are about justice and not simply about revenge and payback, as richly as it is deserved.

[pat_k]

41. I ask again,

"So, rule by signing statement is OK by you?"

You give many rationalizations for keeping silent, but however you rationalize it, failure to demand a stop to rule by signing statement (and Impeachment is the only way to stop them) is to tolerate it.

And, even worse, silence gives Bush cover for his many crimes against our constitutional democracy. As I pionted out in Post #6 above:

. . .
Each day that members of Congress fail to carry out their sworn duty, George W. Bush can point to their failure as justification for his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to power (If he were nuking the Constitution, wouldn't more members of Congress, who are sworn to act, be demanding Impeachment?). . .

By choosing to give cover to criminals they become accomplices after the fact.

The heavy price they are paying for giving Bush a blank check because they feared the fascists would call them bad names should be lesson enough. It is NEVER good politics to an accomplice in crime.

As for our demands "being over the top." How else would you response to a cabal that stole two Presidential elections, tortured in our name, terrorized us into a criminal war of aggression with threats of mushroom clouds in 45 minutes, spies on us without legal authorition, and has suspended the principle of consent with his claims to unitary executive power?

[elocs]

43. No, but I think you are intelligent enough to know

and understand what I meant by my postand shuld be able to figure out that I do not support ruling by signing statements. I am talking about the calls for impeachment right now, in September, just 2 months before the November election which have the potential to motivate Republicans. There are more than enough issues on the plate right now to take back Congress without doing anything to jeopardize that now. This can't wait for 2 months? Then have at it all you like. I understand your point and hopefully you can understand my point and we should just agree to disagree.

[pat_k]

45. when you chose silence yesterday, when you choose it today. . .

. . .and if you choose it again tomorrow, you are tolerating rule by signing statement. You are "looking the other way." You are an accomplice.

If a criminal enterprise is being run next door and you have undeniable evidence of their egregious crimes in your hands, but choose to keep quiet about it, you are tolerating the criminal activity, and you would share responsibly for the criminal acts committed each day that you don't go to the police, present the evidence, and ask them to do their job and put a stop to it.

You may not like the crimes being committed. You may tell yourself you are against the crimes being committed, but when you look the other way you are an enabler -- you are complicit.

The choice you must make regarding the the criminal activities being committed by the highest officer holder in the land is no different.

The moral imperative to act trumps any fears that your action will motivate the opposition, but even those fears are countered by the fact that the Democratic Party faces MUCH greater risks if they DO NOT run on Impeachment.

Whether or not it will be effective remains to be seen, but Republicans are using the "they'll Impeach" line already. Our silence won't stop them, so there is no up side to keeping quiet.

There is a big down side that the Democratic leadership and candidates cannot escape. As Craig Crawford has pointed out, they will pay a high price if the they DO NOT run on Impeachment, but then do what their oath demands of them and move forward only after they perceive it to be "safe." The public will rightly view them as unprincipled cowards. Anyone who stands up for principle only when they think it is safe deserves our disdain.

And there are benefits -- big ones-- that are likely to translate into votes at the polls (nationaizing the election, demonstrating strength and conviction that Americans across the spectrum respect, giving voice to national anger at Bush. . . )

---------------
On Edit

BTW, this has VERY little to do with Democratic v. Republican.

It is Anti-Fascist v. Fascist. And we Anti-Fascists are indeed intolerant when it comes to enabling and appeasing the Fascists, whether the enablers/appeasers are members of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, or any other political party.

If by agree to disagree you mean accept the fact that you choose to be an enabler, I accept that you have made that decision. For your one sake, for the sake of the nation, I hope that you and the many citizens who have made the same decision change your minds. I am not going to stop trying to make that happen.

[elocs]

46. I don't agree with you , but respect your opinion.

I don't think you can say the same of mine. By inference, since you name yourself "Anti-Fascist" then I must be a Fascist as well as an appeaser since I do not agree with you. I don't see any point in continuing this, so this is my last post on the subject here.

[pat_k]

47. You're right, I accept, but do not respect, that you choose to be an

. . enabler/appeaser. I accept that you have made that decision.

For your own sake, for the sake of the nation, I hope that you and the many citizens who have made the same decision change your minds. I am not going to stop trying to make that happen.

Just to be clear, citizens don't have the same level of culpability as members of Congress. Average citizens are not public servants who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Nevertheless, to choose silence so you don't rouse an enemy is to appease (mollify, pacify. . .).

Appease: To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.

It is what it is.

You view the Bush cabal as an enemy, so you are not a Fascist or a Fascist dupe, but you are an appeaser. Almost by definition, appeasers are folks "on our side" (Anti-Fascists) who are appeasing the opposition.

[PresidentWar]

11. This is about the LAW, not a popularity contest.

Should we just let some murderer go too, if the public thinks they are just too cute to incarcerate?

[pat_k]

12. Law in the broadest sense -- Impeachment is a political process. . .

. . .and We the People, through our representatives in Congress, ultimately define what constitutes a high crime against our constitutional democracy.

If there was a national consensus that a President's incompentence posed a clear and present danger to our constituional democracy, we would be demanding Impeachment of that President, whether or he had violated our written law.

It is the conclusion that a high office holder poses a threat to our system of government that is key. It is that threat that serves as the call to members of Congress to step up and carry out their sworn duty to support and defend.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but although articles of Impeachment need not be violations of written law, when you couple their fascist claims of unlimited power with the many crimes the Bush cabal has committed, there is escape from the conclusion that we must Impeach and Remove both Bush and Cheney (they both claim to Un-Constitutional, Un-American, power to trump our will.

• Violations of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act -- U.S. Code Title 50, Section 1805


• Violations of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 844 paragraph (e). Bomb Threat -- Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, willfully makes any threat, or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined under this title, or both.


• Violations of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 35. Imparting or conveying false information (Bomb Hoax)


• Countless acts of negligent homicide, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and wreckless endangerment of the members of our armed forces.


• In their failure to take even minimal steps to prevent the attacks of September 11th, they committed more than 3000 acts of negligent homicide and countless acts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and reckless endangerment.


• Violation of the Title 18 section 2441. War crimes


• Violations of U.S. Code Title 18 in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential <s>elections, In particular:
  
  
  • Section 241, which makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the exercise of a right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States (including the right to vote in an election for President).
  
  
  • Section 594, prohibits the intimidation or coercion (e.g., 10-hour poll-tax lines) of voters for the purpose of interfering with the right to vote for a candidate for federal office. (This statute does not require violent intimidation.)

Related topic: Charges Against George W. Bush

================================================
Each and every violation comes back to their treasonous claim to the right to exercise absolute power.

For every abuse, national and international, they have sought cover in their so-called "theory" of unitary authoritarian executive power; the fascist fantasy that as long as they claim they are acting to "defend" us, they can usurp our collective sovereignty, violate our laws, commit international crime in our name, and destroy our institutions to serve themselves.

Every time Bush, Cheney, or their minions invoke urinary authoritarian power as their get out of jail free card, they declare themselves traitors. This high crime subsumes all others. It is all we need to force them from power tomorrow.

Their many immoral atrocities -- torture Gulags, terroristic threats of Mushroom Clouds,⁽²⁾ criminal war of aggression, massive program of spying on us without warrant or legitimate authorization, on and on -- are the proofs that they recognize NO limits on their power.

Despots who claim absolute power use it. Impeachment is not just a means to hold them accountable for nuking the constitution with their claim to dictatorial power, it is the ONLY way we can protect ourselves against future atrocities.

We know all we need to know to impeach and remove right now. Comprehensive investigation and congressional hearings of the specific crimes (those that have been exposed and those that as yet remain secret) can follow.

Given the gravity and urgency, members of Congress have a sworn duty to do whatever they must to see that Bush and Cheney are forced to resign, or are Impeached and removed.

Their duty is self-evident.

[PresidentWar]

20. It's in the Constitution for a reason.

To remove those who abuse power. It's a legal tool put there as a check on runaway executive power. Using it when it is necessary is the duty of our people in the democratic system we use.

It's not about the ups or downs of one party. Its about the LAW and about doing whats right when elected leaders abuse their power.

[pat_k]

37. If it were a legal process, we would have vested the power to Impeach. . .

. . .in the Judiciary.

We did not. We vested it in Congress.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pat_k]

51. No argumnet there. Congress has a sworn duty to act. . .

. . and it is up to us to help them to see the truth -- that in failing to beat the Impeachment drum, they are being derilect in their duty.

[CollegeDUer]

14. An impeachment investigation would put the GOP on the defensive

They'd spend all the way until 2008 having to defend themselves; their poll numbers would die and they'd trade places with the dems as the ineffective minority party.

[pat_k]

36. Yep! It is not just the RIGHT thing to do, it is the WINNING thing to do.

[immoderate]

5. Impeachment is the only way to regain our dignity.

It's also the only way we can save face in the world. Everybody thinks Americans are stupid. Well, maybe they're right. I have held out on this, thinking we can live through it, and the process is too disruptive. But I am strongly on board now.

We can't let the world think that we are so soft on criminality. These bastards must be brought to justice. The outrages of the administration cannot be tolerated. We are not appeasers.

--IMM

[pat_k]

8. Impeachment IS Our Postive Agenda!!!

http://january6th.org/du-post-hope.html

[elocs]

16. Evidently differences in opinion are not tolerated either.

[immoderate]

19. Who said that?

I mean, besides you.:shrug:

--IMM

[ClassWarrior]

24. So voicing an opposing opinion to yours is "intolerance?"

Wow, how more obvious can you be??

:rofl:

NGU.

[elocs]

29. Well, have you read the general attitude of those who support

immediate impeachment to those who don't. Impeachment threads come up almost as much as Malloy firing threads. The general attitude is not, "Well, sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree". The general attitude I read is if you are not constantly crying for immediate impeachment even if it is not possible now, then you at best get accused of being a Republican or a RW and that is pretty low. You don't really see anybody who supports immediate impeachment concede you might have a point or that they understand what you are saying even if they disagree. If you want to call for impeachment now, then that is your right and I simply disagree with you. I wouldn't question your loyalties or disparage you in any way. That is tolerance.

[immoderate]

32. I think the point is moot.

I can't see any impeachment going anywhere in this congress. We can't even get an oversight hearing. There may be other avenues, like state legislatures, but that route is untested and may fail. I don't see how that can do us any harm though.

I don't see the type af behavior you are citing, but I could have missed it. I think that talking about it is good. Let's get people used to the idea.

--IMM

[pat_k]

42. Yes. There is no downside. . .

and if we persuade the Democratic leadership and Demcratic candidates to start beating the Impeachment drum now, there are as many reasons to believe they will succeed in forcing Bush and Cheney from office as there are to believe they would fail -- yes, we could even see resignations before the current Congress.

Do not underestimate the power of the anger of the American people when it is tapped. The anger is there. Giving voice to it release it.

(You want President Hastert right now, or President Pelosi after the election? Forcing Bush out could be a boon to Republicans -- "Look, WE'RE the ones giving you a "new direction." Of course, but that risk can't deter us from doing what we must.)

If they don't succeed before the election, running on it is the BEST way to make Impeachment and removal a reality in the 110th Congress.

[CollegeDUer]

7. The Progressive and Black Cacauses are the heart of Americ

They are those who will never give in to the fascism at the heart of the corporate-government structure. They aren't afraid to be looked at as "extremists." Extremism in defense of liberty -- is no vice, remember.

[Senator]

13. k & r

[pat_k]

17. Follow up to those who believe we must keep quiet about Impeachment . .

To those who believe we must keep quiet about Impeachment because they fear it will rouse the mythical backlash beast:

How can the fear of being called names, or fear of "backlash" from the Fascists and their dupes, compare to the fears that the men and women in our armed services must face to fulfill their oath to support and defend?

Members of Congress take the same oath. Why should we expect less of our representatives in Congress? Why should they expect less of themselves?

To those who believe we must keep quiet about Impeachment because they want Democratic leaders to stick to "a positive agenda":

Impeachment IS Our Positive agenda. As long as we stand mute and leave governing power in the hands of men who are a law onto themselves, we surrender our power to bring about change and the doors of possibility that would be open to a legitimate American President will remain closed to us.

"IMPEACH BushCheney" is a message of hope and a declaration of our power. . . see this post for more.

To those who believe Democratic members of Congress need to lay low "for now" and perhaps think about piping up after we win the House.

When principle demands action, outcome expectations, positive or negative, do not enter into the decision to act.

That said, for purposes of discussion, let's put the moral imperative aside for a moment.

Why should we lay low? What are the risks?

I've been asking that question for years and have yet to hear a logical or evidence-based case that could stand up to scrutiny. Of course, maybe demanding Impeachment will turn out to be politically fatal, but we have every reason to believe it is more likely to be fatal if our candidates and leaders FAIL to stand up and demand Impeachment.

This assessment doesn't just come from the "folks out here" -- it comes from Craig Crawford (about as inside the beltway as you can get). Back in April, he described the risks and benefits and pointed out that Impeachment is perhaps the only way Democratic candidates can "put Bush on the ballot" and "nationalize the election." He also pointed out that it is very dangerous NOT to campaign on Impeachment if they have any intention of moving forward on it after the election. link

If Democratic members wait until it is "safe" to speak up, how can they expect Americans to believe they are demanding Impeachment on principle?

We will not stop fighting to make Impeachment a reality. If they make the mistake of continuing their policy of appeasement though the election, when we win and they move forward on impeachment, their silence now will rob them of any benefit they might have gotten for standing on principle. However it plays out, their silence now just reinforces the notion that Democrats are wimps.

When they use strong language that actually captures the truth about Bush's crimes, they are inevitably asked, "If he is violating the Constitution, why aren't you demanding Impeachment?" Feingold is clear, concise, and consistent, because his is calling for the strongest action that a member of the Senate can. Conyers speaks with clarity and authority. The rest of them sound like morally confused mealy-mouthed morons as they tap dance around Impeachment.

It is akin to a prosecutor presenting you with undeniable evidence that the CEO of your corporation conspired to burn down your corporate headquarters, is raiding the company coffers, is making secret deals with other companies without the board's knowledge, and is claiming that, as CEO, he had a right to do it all with impunity.

If, after making the case, the prosecutor told you that the board had no intention of doing anything to stop the guy, and that she had no intention of arresting the bastard, you would rightfully think the whole bunch of them was nuts.

Bottom line: It is never good politics to be complicit in a crime.

To those who believe we can lay low and fix things by "voting them out." in 2008:

If you get the truth -- that a fascist cabal is being allowed to wield absolute power in the United States -- but think you can sit tight and hope to "vote them out," you, like so many of your fellow citizens, are in deep denial.

Truth matters. When we paper it over and try to move on, reality has a nasty way of extracting a very high price for our cowardice.

Nothing short of Impeachment will force this nation to confront, and come to terms with, the truth:

• that a rogue regime seized power on January 6th, 2001;


• that our common contract among ourselves -- the Constitution of the United States -- has been in breach since that date;


• that we allowed a self-proclaimed unitary authoritarian executive to wield the incredible power of the American Presidency to torture; to conduct a criminal war of aggression; to terrorize us into that war with threats of mushrooms clouds; to rule by signing statement; to commit crimes -- those that are known, and those that have yet to be exposed -- against our constitutional democracy; and to claim the power to commit these crimes with impunity.


• that any power the American people had to serve as a force for good in the world was surrendered when we surrendered the sovereignty of We the People.

These are hard truths, but there is a path to redemption -- that path is Impeachment.

[liberaldemocrat7]

18. FORGET ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.

GO directly and ask for Bush and Cheney to resign. We will force Rush Limbaugh's advertisers to get Bush and Cheney to resign.


Consider this a referendum on the combined impeachment, conviction, resignation of George W Bush and Richard Cheney.

I report, you decide. Pass this text to the ends of the country east, west, north and south.

Resolved that we call for the resignation of George W bush and Richard Cheney for:


1. Starting an invasion of a country based upon lies and that did not attack ours.

2. Wiretapping of people within the United States without obtaining warrants for such wiretaps.



If you do not consent to this call for the resignation simply do nothing.

If you do consent to the call for resignation of George W Bush and Richard B Cheney based
upon the two charges listed above


Call each of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors. Demand they get Bush and Cheney to resign and until they resign you will not ever buy their products again until they accomplish the demand. Spread the word. This referendum shall stand or fall based upon the merits and each citizen will decide. Please spread this text throughout the net and post in libraries, town meeting, supermarkets, everywhere in the United States of America.



Rush Limbaugh's advertisers

Tell them you have called them because they advertise on Rush Limbaugh's show and they help advance the Republican agenda.


Bose Wave Radio 508-766-7781

Lending Tree [phone]

Life Quotes 1-800-670-5433

Select Comfort 763-551-7460

Overstock.com
1-800-989-0135
(customer comments and service email)
[e-mail]

eharmony
300 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1111
Pasadena, CA 91101
[e-mail]
626.795.4814
FAX [phone]


Inverness Medical (maker of stresstabs)
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, MA 02021
1-800-899-7353 weekdays, 8 am. - 6 p.m. (Eastern Time.)

Onstar
1-800-947-AUTO

Hotwire Corporate Headquarters
333 Market Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94105
[e-mail]
1-877-HOTWIRE (468-9473)
415-343-8400

Sleep Number Bed
1-800-438-2233

The Neptune Society of Northern California
Stewart Enterprises
12070 Telegraph Road ..107
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Oreck Upright Vacuum Cleaners
Oreck Corporation
100 Plantation Road
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123
Online contact form
1-800-289-5888

Smart & Final
Customer Relations
PO Box 512377
Los Angeles, CA 91001-0377
(Heard on KFI 640 in Los Angeles)

Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee
9151 Grapevine Hwy.
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
Phone [phone]
(web banner ads on rushlimbaugh.com)

AutoZone Inc.
P.O. Box 2198
Memphis, TN 38101
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

UPDATED - Citracal - Mission Pharmacal
Bennett Kennedy - Citracal Product Manager
Mission Pharmacal
P.O. Box 786099
San Antonio, TX 78278-6099
Phone:[phone]

Blue-Emu

1-800-432-9334
http://www.blue-emu.com/


Red Lobster
Write to:
P.O. Box 593330
Orlando, FL 32859-3330
Guest Relations Hotline
1-800-LOBSTER (1-800-562-7837)

Lumber Liquidators
Toll Free: 877-645-5347
Contact list: http://www.lumberliquidators.com/contact_us.html

Avacor (hair loss treatment)
(customer comments email)
[e-mail]

Lazerguide� (golf instruction tool)
PO Box 807
New Hudson Michigan 48165
1-877-266-6430 (toll free)


Mission Pharmacal Company
10999 IH-10 West Suite 1000
San Antonio, TX 78230
Telephone: [phone]


General Steel Metal Buildings
1075 South Yukon, Ste. 250
Lakewood, Colorado 80226
Toll Free: 1-888-98-STEEL
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


Life Quotes, Inc.
32045 Castle Court
Evergreen, CO 80439
1-800-670-5433
[e-mail]


Select Comfort Corporation
6105 Trenton Lane N
Minneapolis, MN 55442
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Scottrade Inc
12855 Flushing Meadows Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63131
1-800-619-SAVE
[e-mail]


RegionalHelpWanted.com, Inc.
1 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 506
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
800-365-8630
845-471-5200
[e-mail]


The Swap Shop
3291 East Sunrise
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
[e-mail]
Phone - 954.791.$WAP


Pfizer Inc
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
212-733-2323

[pat_k]

25. Go for it!! And while we are on the subject of resignations, . . .

The resignation of Bush and Cheney to escape the threat of Impeachment is actually the most likely outcome.

If Democratic members would actually get out there and start beating the Impeachment drum, and get out there NOW, the floodgates of national anger would open, and Bush and Cheney would get "one of those visits" from the Republican leadership. . .

"Sorry Dick, George. You're Toast. You can fight it and hand the keys over to Nancy Pelosi after the election, or get the heck outta dodge now, and hand the keys to Hastert."

Just think of it Geo, here's your chance to get your ass back to Crawford while the weather is still good.

This is something folks need to get. The Bush Cheney impeachment will not be a long drawn out thing. They could be out so fast the beltway boobs won't know what hit them.

[AZBlue]

22. I'll demand it as soon as we get back Congress (and can see it succeed)

Until then I'll work to make sure we take back Congress this fall.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

I'll be doing both.

And IMPEACHMENT doesn't need to "succeed" to succeed. Just by demanding it, just by injecting it into every breakfast table conversation in America, we win.

NGU.

[AZBlue]

26. It DOES need to succeed. (And, there's no need to be rude, CW)

It must be done and done right. Why half-ass it? It's NOT enough to inject "it into every breakfast table conversation." What does that get us if he's still President?? Nothing at all.

And, failure to get enough votes just gives the Republicans something else to use against us.

[ClassWarrior]

27. They'll find "something else to use against us" no matter what we do.

I'd rather like it to be our strong demands for justice.

And what does it get us if Bush** is still squatting in the office? Another nail in the coffin of the corrosive, corrupt, criminal Republicon Party. Remember, Bush** isn't the failure. The failure is the conservative philosophy itself:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/incompetent

Please stop thinking small, tactical, and short-term. And apologies for the jab.

NGU.

[AZBlue]

33. I don't think small or short term. Precisely the opposite.

As evidenced by my earlier post.

[pat_k]

34. Getting IT "done and done right" is simple.

Where IT = Breaking the bonds of complicity with Bush and Cheney's crimes

----------------------
The Congressional oath is an INDIVIDUAL oath that demands INDIVIDUAL action.

Every day that a member of Congress allows Bush and Cheney to continue their criminal enterprise unchallenged, that member is complicit with that criminal enterprise.

Their complicity is no different from a the complicity of a cop who enables a criminal syndicate by "looking the other way."

The only "right" time to break the bonds of complicity is NOW.

All a member needs to do to get IT done is open their mouths and tell the truth.

The grave danger and the necessity for action is easily conveyed to the American people (as Feingold, Harkin, Boxer, and Kerry have demonstrated in interviews). When confronted with the truth, Americans understand that such absolute power is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

When a member stands up and demands Impeachment, they are breaking the bonds of complicity.

As they fight to make Impeachment a reality, they will undoubtedly lobby their colleagues, but ultimately, they are not responsible for the outcome. Each member can only be responsible for doing that which their oath demands of them.

In truth is power. When members stand up and do what they must, the future will take care of itself. Drafting articles of Impeachment may never even become necessary. When the Impeachment drum begins to beat, we could see resignations to escape the threat of Impeachment almost immediately.

------------------------------
Regarding:

<i>It's NOT enough to inject "it into every breakfast table conversation." What does that get us if he's still President?? Nothing at all.</i>

Although ClassWarrior already weighed in, there are a couple thoughts I'd like to add.

We empowered Congress to Impeach and so the process must play out there, but Congress is OUR voice. It is the citizens of this nation who are the soldiers in the battle. It is a battle with countless fronts, some top-down, some bottom-up. One on one efforts to persuade members of Congress is just one of those fronts.

It is the collective soveriengty of We the People that Bush and Cheney are trumping. In demanding Impeachment, we are reclaiming our soveriegnty.

It is nearly impossible to get a handle on the reality of our "collective sovereignty" in this battle, but conversations like this one, in which we discuss our national predicament or seek to motivate others to to fight to make Impeachment a reality are part of it.

People engage across fences, around tables, in small pockets of activity. There is no vantage point from which the multitude of actions that contribute to our victories can be observed, but every action, every breakfast table conversation that motivates political thought or action is a significant part of the whole.

Even the actors rarely see the ripple effects of their actions. One call or letter can reach further and have greater impact than weeks of plodding. When we connect with others and act, the only thing we can know for sure of is that we are feeding a positive feedback loop of action=>hope=>engagement=>connection=>action=>hope that is sweeping up others.

[elocs]

31. Can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

That is exactly the kind of jab and put-down by those who support impeachment now toward those who don't. That's what I mean my intolerance for an opposing viewpoint by a fellow Democrat. In my local paper the Democrats and Liberals regularly get their ideas and opinions ripped by the neocons and right wingers which makes it hard to have the same thing done by Democrats.

[pat_k]

39. You hit the nail on the head -- not only does the fight yield rewards . .

. . .whatever the outcome, the BEST way we can help a Democratic candidate to win is to persuade them to stand against fascism and demand Impeachment.

As I point out in my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2040956&mesg_id=2043674">response below, when a candidate starts beating the Impeachment drum, they nationalize their election (which is critical given the national anger at the Republicans in Congress), they "put Bush on the Ballot" (also critical to counter their efforts to run from the ravings of an increasing desperate White House).

And standing on principle always benefits the candidates who does so. As Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right."

The most serious problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak
link

Contrary to what many so-called Democratic "strategists" believe, the perception of weakness has NOTHING to do with stance on national security. It is rooted in:

• The reticence that centrists seem to have when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers, Democratic leaders seek to "investigate" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.")


• The tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

Bottom line: You can't fight terrorism if you can't fight Bush. How can members of the Democratic Party expect their fellow citizens to believe they can stand up to terrorists, if they can't stand up to the man who terrorized Americans into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes"?

[pat_k]

28. There is a response to this common position in the "Follow up" post above

Although the following from Post #17 is not specifically addressed folks who believe lobbying for Impeachment now is a distraction from winning back the house, many of the points are applicable.

For example, the notion that standing up for impeachment improves a candidates prospects (demonstrates strength and principle, it "puts Bush on the Ballot" and "Nationalizes the election").

So, when you lobby Democratic leaders and candidates to demand Impeachment, you are lobbying them to do something that will help them get elected.

To those who believe Democratic members of Congress need to lay low "for now" and perhaps think about piping up after we win the House.

When principle demands action, outcome expectations, positive or negative, do not enter into the decision to act.

That said, for purposes of discussion, let's put the moral imperative aside for a moment.

Why should we lay low? What are the risks?

I've been asking that question for years and have yet to hear a logical or evidence-based case that could stand up to scrutiny. Of course, maybe demanding Impeachment will turn out to be politically fatal, but we have every reason to believe it is more likely to be fatal if our candidates and leaders FAIL to stand up and demand Impeachment.

This assessment doesn't just come from the "folks out here" -- it comes from Craig Crawford (about as inside the beltway as you can get). Back in April, he described the risks and benefits and pointed out that Impeachment is perhaps the only way Democratic candidates can "put Bush on the ballot" and "nationalize the election." He also pointed out that it is very dangerous NOT to campaign on Impeachment if they have any intention of moving forward on it after the election. link

If Democratic members wait until it is "safe" to speak up, how can they expect Americans to believe they are demanding Impeachment on principle?

We will not stop fighting to make Impeachment a reality. If they make the mistake of continuing their policy of appeasement though the election, when we win and they move forward on impeachment, their silence now will rob them of any benefit they might have gotten for standing on principle. However it plays out, their silence now just reinforces the notion that Democrats are wimps.

When they use strong language that actually captures the truth about Bush's crimes, they are inevitably asked, "If he is violating the Constitution, why aren't you demanding Impeachment?" Feingold is clear, concise, and consistent, because his is calling for the strongest action that a member of the Senate can. Conyers speaks with clarity and authority. The rest of them sound like morally confused mealy-mouthed morons as they tap dance around Impeachment.

It is akin to a prosecutor presenting you with undeniable evidence that the CEO of your corporation conspired to burn down your corporate headquarters, is raiding the company coffers, is making secret deals with other companies without the board's knowledge, and is claiming that, as CEO, he had a right to do it all with impunity.

If, after making the case, the prosecutor told you that the board had no intention of doing anything to stop the guy, and that she had no intention of arresting the bastard, you would rightfully think the whole bunch of them was nuts.

Bottom line: It is never good politics to be complicit in a crime.

[Senator]

38. Seeing far fewer Rationalizations for Inaction

Which is good, because that's what all these stratego-collegial-politico-electoral objections are -- just rationalizations for inaction -- and worse, a recipe for failure, in that "waiting for a majority" makes it seem like just one more partisan stunt with the public.

There's simply no downside (outside the beltway) to calling for impeachment.

But beyond that crap, it's the only way we can even begin to dial back from this madness - to demonstrate acknowledgement and regret for what this never-elected, never-legitimate regime has wrought across the planet.

It is the one path to Redeem Our National Soul.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--
www.january6th.org

[elocs]

44. This is exactly what I mean by the intolerance

for an opposing viewpoint concerning impeachment not. Our opinions are referred to as "crap" and the call for impeachment now is "the one path to Redeem Our National Soul". I am sorry to see there is only "one" path to do that. Since the call for impeachment now "is our ONLY moral, patriotic option" does that mean that those who believe differently from you are not moral or not patriots? It is not difficult to take that as the clear meaning. The Democratic Party is not one large and unyielding monolith that has no room for differences of opinion. There are already plenty of Republicans who are constantly calling Democrats unpatriotic.

[Senator]

48. You may opt to tolerate impeachable offenses...

...and feel free to explain your reasons. But I see no one doing that.

You may feel Geneva and FISA violations are not criminal and/or impeachable, but I see no one claiming that either.

What you seem to want tolerance for is agreement that impeachment is warranted, but refusal or delay in being honest in public about that in order to gain some political payoff.

I have difficulty in seeing the morality or patriotism in that; or indeed how it differs much from the regime's craven attitude toward our core values as a nation.

Regardless of what Republicans have been trained to think, everything is not a matter of opinion.

==

[calimary]

50. As I've seen around here before - "either you're FOR accountability

or you're NOT."