|
|
Add to My Group
Ron Paul claims to be a defender of the US Constitution. Like all other members of Congress, he has sworn to uphold and defend it against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Why has he not signed on to the various bills for impeachment that have come before the House since 2004? If he is so concerned about the Constitution, why is he not following its mandate to impeach members of the Executive Branch who override the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers? Why will he not vote to impeach those who lie to Congress, issue signing statements that override laws passed by Congress, refuse to allow Congressional oversight, etc? Ron Paul is capitalizing on the disaffection of Republicans for Bush and Cheney, who are leaders elected by GOP voters to hold the highest offices in the land. Yet Paul remains a loyal Republican, in the sense that he will not join the call to impeach Bush and Cheney for their obvious high crimes and misdemeanors. Without impeachment, these criminals will go unpunished. Without impeachment, the precedents set by Bush and Cheney, that a "unitary executive" can override the Constitution, will stand, and will be used by future presidents to impose their will on the country. Until Ron Paul cosponsors H. Res. 799, the call to impeach Cheney for lying us into Iraq and trying to repeat the maneuver with Iran, I'll consider him a hypocrite. He's so proud of his independent voting record, but on the issue of impeachment, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING THIS NATION, Ron Paul is silent. HYPOCRITE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTowK03sr7Q Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is a cochair of Bay Area Impeach Bush-Cheney. You can join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
She ran for Congress in '06, and is now a Gteen candidate for Congress in CA district 1. She is a coordinator of The New Broom Coalition, for a clean sweep of Congress.
I am the vice president of a small oil and gas company in houston. I have 1 daughter, and have been married for 3 years. I am 27. I am an ardent Ron Paul supporter.
dunno i have not heard why, but I'm sure he has his reasons. He may think it is an impossible objective, why waste the money. I am fully confidant he has good reasons. it seems you are advancing your agenda here, being the head of some impeach buch cheney org., but i hope thats not the case. so you are not going to vote for ron paul because of this? i guess you are voting to kuscininch? he's intelligent and i like how he tells you the truth, but a man that says he has seen UFO's, really is going to have a hard time getting elected, even if he really saw one. why dont you ask someone in ron pauls campaign instead of people that really dont know and would just be guessing. by
jason carr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 1:09:05 PM
I'm a farmer and Ron Paul rEVOLution recruiter
Ron Paul is juggling a lot of dishes in the air right now. His presidential run is trying to get a toe hold. If he does win some primaries, he will need to dismantle the Republican Party in order to save it. He can't afford to create bitter rancor. His official explanation for not supporting the current impeachment bill is that it doesn't conform with the rules of the House. His supporter know he would like to say more. by
wraft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 7:19:23 PM
By William E. Douglas, Jr., who is author of "The Amateur Parent – A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has been a guest columnist for the Kansas City Star, The Business Journal, and other media worldwide. His past essays include, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts," "The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement -- US Media's Dirty Little Secret," "Good Night, and Good Luck - WMD, NIST, Popular Mechanics, ...
What would really help Ron Paul, Kucinich & McKinney is 9/11 What would really help Ron Paul, Kucinich & McKinney is 9/11 TRUTH !!! All top tear candidates are buying into the "al qaeda boogeyman" as the future of America. The only thing that can really open Americans minds to the wisdom Paul, Kucinich, and McKinney offer . . . is a dose of reality. A big 9/11 truth breakthrough may break open the American mind, BEFORE the elections. An action novel, called "The Shell Game," by a New York Times best selling author. Check out the below article on the growing coalition advocating the widest possible readership of this uniquely historic novel. Why Would REAL 9/11 Truth Activists Advocate a Work of FICTION? http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_071231_why_would_real_9_2f11_.htm by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 11:52:29 AM
By William E. Douglas, Jr., who is author of "The Amateur Parent – A Book on Life, Death, War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has been a guest columnist for the Kansas City Star, The Business Journal, and other media worldwide. His past essays include, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts," "The Explosion of the 9-11 Truth Movement -- US Media's Dirty Little Secret," "Good Night, and Good Luck - WMD, NIST, Popular Mechanics, ...
Some feel if the above novel shoots to #1 it could help stop Some feel if the above novel shoots to #1 it could help stop an invasion of Iran, as it educates action fiction readers . . . which America loves action fiction . . . to the manipulation of government to lie us into war. This cautionary tale, may go down in history as the 2008 version of 1984 . . . and help millions of Americans antennas go up BEFORE they allow another illegal invasion in their name. by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 11:55:39 AM
America reads books? I would love to believe that a work of fiction would somehow help the 9/11 Truth movement and perhaps it can't hurt, but recently the movie "V" for Vendetta pretty much stated the same message and to what degree it got people thinking or changed things is debatable. It's sad that documentaries such as 9/11 Press for Truth, Iraq For Sale and others haven't been distributed to major theaters or on television and we have to rely on works of fiction to get the truth out - if that's even possible. I wish I had more confidence in the written word as an influence, but judging from recent history there have been numerous books that have made the Best Sellers List that have exposed this government for the fraud that it is and any effect they have I haven't seen. It's all part of the dumbing-down syndrome. If it's not on a major television network - it doesn't mean squat. But back to point - I will give credit to Paul, and Kucinich who have both said they support a new investigation into 9/11. It's a step in the right direction. But this won't happen, if indeed it does, until after the election - "if" either gets elected - and that's a big "IF". And I can understand the explosiveness of the issue from my own experience. It's more than just a "hot topic" issue, it has personally caused riffs within family and friends. It's extremely difficult for many people to have their belief structure, one they have believed all their lives, wiped-out from under them with the revelation that people they trusted would commit such unspeakable crimes. But I do agree, if the truth of 9/11 is ever exposed it will shake the foundations of this country, nah, this world, to it's very core. by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1254 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 2:58:27 PM
Do you really care? I'm an engineer in Silicon Valley.
Why don't any of you read what he said about it? http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/documents/976.php by
fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 3:52:22 AM
dunno either.. Id ask the campaign. 877 RON PAUL Somebody should be able to give you the info. Thats the last thing thats swaying my vote. by
Parke Nicholson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 1:16:43 PM
I'm a 50 year-old patriot living in Illinois.
Carol, why won't you commit suicide? That is precisely the question you propose for Paul. If he supported 799, he'd be voted out of office and because no one listens to Paul, it would be a significant loss for our nation. It has less to do with courage and more to do with common sense. 799 is NEVER going to go anywhere with the administration and congress we have in office. NEVER Carol. If you honestly think impeachment proceedings would ever take place with this assorted and sundry cadre of neocons and neoliberals in office, you really have your rose colored glasses on. The best thing for this country is to get people elected who buck the system. Then maybe we can talk impeachment. Yours is the silliest excuse I've ever seen for not supporting Ron Paul. by
Dave (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 1:34:13 PM
A bit inconsistent here One of the things that people like most about Ron Paul is his holding to principle. If Cheney and Bush have broken the laws of the constitution, it is inconsistent for him to not support at least impeachment hearings. He doesn't have to vote to impeach, but he should at least support hearings. And Paul has already said a lot of stuff that other congress reps would consider suicidal. by
Rob Kall (761 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1642 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 7:12:26 PM
The candidates & "Cheney's Law" I agree that it would be suicide for him at this juncture and now is a good time to pressure him and perhaps an Edwards on this issue. They both have stepped outside the wishes of their party leaders so to me they are trying to establish a new leadership and direction for their parties. I think it is important that Paul and Edwards do well in the up coming caucus and primary to establish legitimacy. The impeachment pressure should be continually applied to all candidates. I think Paul is the best chance of allowing the law to be executed. Most of the candidates would pardon the criminals after any findings which is the whole reason that Cheney was allowed to advance this theory from his initial service in the Nixon Presidency: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/ The video "Cheney's Law" documents his rise well. by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 8:02:29 AM
79,GWU classmate of Jackie Bouvier-1953,WWII&Korea vet,RPH UConn,lived AK 20years,organic farming Maine now
Paul Impeach? I read you suicidal or not - he should come out on it! I'm sending Carol's article to Lew Rockwell. nels (How'd you like the Vermont WalkingMan? by
nelswight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 2:23:24 PM
I do not feel it necessary for me to give you a bio..this is not High School
So you don't have a problem with a politician who says he supports the Constitution but doesn't support impeachment for crimes against the Constitution.....Whats Carol got to do with it...is she running for President...? Kind of a stupid comparison..... by
Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 252 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 11:19:41 AM
I agree... I believe that Ron Paul is trying to become Presidnet before he takes a look at war crimes. I think it would be naive to think that Ron Paul does not think that their are merits to bringing the current administration to justice, but one thing at a time. Let's get him elected President and let him THEN work on other issues. by
Chris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 1:58:05 PM
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites.
Fool me once... Where have we heard that argument before -- just get us elected first, and then we'll address ending the war, impeaching war criminals? Oh, yeah. Nancy Pelosi...Harry "please don't hurt me" Reid...John "can't you people take a joke?" Conyers...and far too many more. Once elected, Pelosi slammed her gavel down on the table, knocking impeachment off...and we all know the shameful (or is it shameless?) cave-ins to Bush on the war, from more money than he asks for -- to surging more of Kissinger's "dumb, stupid pawns" -- you know, our children? -- to be slaughtered for no good reason. What Carol meant, and I agree, is that they don't have a choice about impeaching and removing those in office who are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors -- They are directed by the Constitution to do so. What part of "shall be removed from office" do they not understand? It's not just Paul who should do the right thing -- ALL those in Congress who are again hiding behind "just get us elected..." should be impeached and driven from office. However, Paul is running for the highest office in the land. Paul talks the talk. He gets massive support from those who believe him when he says he believes in following our Constitution. It's time for him to walk the walk... by
Sheila Samples (50 articles, 3519 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 374 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:28:59 PM
Insurance Tease is a small business concern, that is to say, concerned with the debacle called the American Health Care System.
Why Ron Paul Hasn't Endorsed Impeachment... Yet. As others have mentioned Ron Paul is running for president, and being a Republican candidate he doesn't want to drive a wedge into his party. This is likely the same reason why the majority of Democratic candidates haven't supported impeachment. The fact is Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that sponsored impeachment, actually brought the issue to the house of representatives and has had the courage to speak publically. We should note the courage and strength of charactor of the three members of the house judiciary committee that have taken up the cause. We know that those who have supported the case for impeachment do so out of a deep respect for the constitution, and the American people, and do so at some risk to their own reputations. This is not something that is done lightly. As for those candidates, congressman and congresswomen that have not voiced their support as of yet, we understand their hesitation, but expect them to join the fight in the end. If they do not, then they are not the representatives we need or want. by
InsuranceTeaseDOTcom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 3:57:09 PM
IMHO The unity of the republican party is a whole lot less important than defying the ongoing struggles of a group of people trying to establish a n*zi-like dictatorship in the USA! by
Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 195 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 8:19:05 AM
Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
Good question Carol That would be the first question I'd put to Ron Paul or his supporters as well. If as one commenter has suggested raising impeachment really is akin to political suicide then what chance is there that Ron Paul can do anything else that is politically difficult? Picking and choising which parts of the Constitution to support and defend and which parts to let go for political expedience is exactly the problem with the current batch of emminent representatives. I could respect an American President that with the support of the Congress withdrew from the United Nations on principle and withdrew from treaties. I wouldn't agree that it was the right or smartest thing to do, but I could respect it as honorable. Unfortunately most Americans seem to be quite willing to be conspicuous hypocrits oathbreakers and treaty breakers and to allow their country to be perceived that way. It is very difficult to see how that can result in anything good. Things almost have to get worse perhaps a lot worse before ordinary people become enlightened enough to want to make them better. Perhaps we humans are living through the last gaspings of national democracies and the world will have to go through another turbulent period before something better than national democracies can emerge to reestablish a nexus between human rights and human responsibilities. It isn't tenable that Americans either withdraw from the world - the world won't leave them alone - those days are long gone, and American capital won't leave the rest of the world alone no matter who is President, so the only way forward is essentially upward towards a sort of global government which many will resist kicking and screaming. But one environment that needs management will make global government inevitable so the sooner people start thinking about what form that global government will take - what checks and balances it should have - the better. by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 4:00:09 PM
Undergraduate degree in political science and philosophy: summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa; with postgraduate work in political economics. Postgraduate degree is a juris doctorate. I am a voracious reader and, although I make no claim to expertise, have self studied in logic, linguistics, theology, theoretical physics, macroeconomics, technical and fundamental market analysis, world history, and many other subjects, which I believed at the time helped explain the world around me.
AMERICAN CAPITAL American capital long ago fled the United States and positioned its industrial bases in countries where regulation and employee rights and wages are more easily kept to a minimum. Paul's position is that American citizens should no longer pay the exorbitant military costs to protect the interests of those multi-nationals. Considering our current financial condition, this would seem an immanently good idea. by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 283 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 5:20:02 PM
Keep up the pressure Bret, I agree that at this point it would be suicide for Ron Paul, but I also think that as his campaign progresses and he gets more credibility he should come out in favor of Impeachment. Even if he doesn't finish well perhaps he should come out as a supporter and run as a third party. I think a unity 08 ticket with Paul and Kucinich would receive bipartisian support in a general election. by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 9:22:38 AM
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors Ron Paul upholds a literal interpretation of the text of the Constitution, even if it may not be convenient. Truth be told Bush did not commit any actual crimes in the course of starting the war. 1) Treason is defined in the Constitution as levying war against the United States or aiding or abbetting the enemy (the legally defined enemy) 2) Bribery is just plain bribery, and Bush has to much money already for that... 3) High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A felony or misdemeanor, unfortunately Bush did not commit them. The laws of purjury do not extend to the President's statements to the American people or to the Congress not under oath. So while Paul bleeds out his ears in his hatred of Bush and wants to reverse his policies after the election, he will not propose outright impeachment because the literal conditions are not met, and the consistent part of a literal interpretation of the Constitution is to uphold it even when it is inconvinient to your own cause. by
jacob klein (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 4:53:49 PM
Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
"Truth be told" Bush DID commit a crime in invading Iraq He exceeded the October 2002 Authorisation to use force by BREAKING and not ENFORCING United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 which was unanimously resolved in November 2002. The United States Constitution is very clear that "treaties made" are part of the United States Supreme law. The UN Charter was ratified by the US Senate before George W Bush was born. The UN Charter has been part of US Supreme law all of his life and it certainly was when he took his Presidential Oath. Under the US Constitution the President has a duty to see that the laws are "faithfully executed". That isn't just the one's he personally is fond of. By giving the order to invade Iraq before the Security Council has deemed Iraq's "final opportunity" - the opportunity it was granted in Resolution 1441, Bush illegally (.e. against the terms of the Charter, and outside of the parameters of the authorisation to use force usurped the Security Councils call, and) deemed the opportunity over unilaterally. Bush shows that seem penchant for setting himself up as absolute determiner and decider of legal matters in other areas as well. In the United States the SCOTUS has already corrected a couple of his overreachings. With the invasion of Iraq Bush effectively undermined a treaty - the UN Charter - that was the very hub of international law. It is the hub, because it effectively says it is - and was ratified by all its member nations including the US of A. by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 1:27:03 AM
"There can be no freedom for a society that lacks the means with which to detect lies." - Guy Debord
I'm just guessing here... You wrote: "He exceeded the October 2002 Authorisation to use force by BREAKING and not ENFORCING United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 which was unanimously resolved in November 2002." by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 10:17:15 AM
Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
The guess shows a misunderstanding, unfortunately common "Ron Paul wants us out of the UN altogether and he may not see a transgression of a UN resolution as an impeachable offense. Ron Paul is for US sovereignty, not UN sovereignty." There is no such thing as UN sovereignty - the UN is a contract between nations. Like all contracts it involved giving up something to get something. The decision to enter that contract was made by the US senate in 1945. In 1945 the US Senate ratified the UN Charter into US law. And it is the Constitution, the very same Constitution that Ron Paul and his supporters claim to harken to, that makes clear at article VI that "The Constitution, ... and all treaties made, ... shall be the supreme law of the land". Ron Paul can WANT the United States to be out of the UN all he likes but the fact remains that the United States currently IS a member of the United Nations and Ron Paul cannot be BOTH for the Constitution and for breaking a UN security council Resolution whilst the United States currently is a member nation and whilst the UN Charter currently is part of US Supreme law. The US Constitution makes it absolutely clear (and the Federalist papers only make it clearer) that all treaties made, as the UN Charter was made, by Senate ratification, are part of the supreme law of the United States. Neither Ron Paul nor you (nor President Bush for that matter) are entitled to set aside the EXISTING Supreme Law of the United States in the form of treaties. As for being for US Sovereignty and not for UN Sovereignty, with respect, that is exactly the sort of muddled thinking that both got the United States into the mess in Iraq and makes it very difficult to have the sort of intelligent discussions that could get the United States out on sensible terms. The UN is not a sovereign body it is an agreement between sovereign bodies. Just as a free person is free to constrain their freedoms in some respects in order to gain more freedoms in other respects by making contracts with other free persons so too are sovereign nations. To argue that the US lost sovereignty when it ratified the UN Charter is not exactly wrong it just dumbs down what occurs when a quid pro quo agreement is made. The US voluntarily and contractually took on some restrictions on its actions, such as a restriction on being able to launch aggressive wars, in exchange for other countries doing the same. That isn't about loss of sovereignty its just about being sensible and increasing the nett amount of freedom for all the sovereign players that become part of the contract. Only free players, sovereigns get to make those sort of mutually beneficial agreements. And as a sovereign nation the US could, with the Senate and President action in accord, but not with the President acting alone, rescind or revoke those contracts with other nations legitimately under US Constitutional law. This is where I suspect Ron Paul (or at least his supporters) are in danger of being muddleheaded regressives. It isn't possible to isolate America from the rest of the world because America isn't strong enough to stand alone against the rest of the world. America has taken on treaty obligations - obligations against launching illegal wars, obligations against torture, that are in accordance with the values of not just most decent Americans but most decent human beings. In fact US supreme law reflects those values and obligations but it isn't being enforced. Those obligations do have the force of United States law because those treaties were ratified into United States law, and therefore it is the US Constitution and not me or anyone else that makes them part of US law. Ron Paul as an individual, and you as an individual are permitted to want to change the law if you don't like it. And the Constitution (and Federalist papers) allow for treaties to be unmade just like any other laws. But neither you nor Ron Paul can deny the law of existing duly ratified treaties as part of US Supreme law without denying the US Constitution. The founding fathers of the United States knew that it was a nation within a world and that as such it would have to have a way to deal with that reality. Treaties are a part of the US constitution. I think there are many Ron Paul supporters who don't get that opting out of the world is not really an option in 2007. Its wasn't even an option when the United States was first formed. by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 5:04:31 PM
"There can be no freedom for a society that lacks the means with which to detect lies." - Guy Debord
Ron Paul on the UN Hi Brett, The administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalition” through the promise of billions in foreign aid dollars only reinforce the perception that we’re trying to buy support for the war. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions! Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America. Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government. The choice is very clear: we either |
