The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois' 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.
Detailing five specific charges against President Bush including one that is specified to be a felony, the complete text of HJR0125 is copied below at the end of this article. One of the interesting points is that one of the items, the one specified as a felony, that the NSA was directed by the President to spy on American citizens without warrant, is not in dispute. That fact should prove an interesting dilemma for a Republican controlled US House that clearly is not only loathe to initiate impeachment proceedings, but does not even want to thoroughly investigate any of the five items brought up by the Illinois Assembly as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Should HJR0125 be passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the US House will be forced by House Rules to take up the issue of impeachment as a privileged bill, meaning it will take precedence over other House business.
The Illinois General Assembly joins a growing chorus of voices calling for censure or impeachment of President Bush including Democratic state committees in Vermont, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina as well as the residents themselves of seven towns in Vermont, seventy Vermont state legislators and Congressman John Conyers. The call for impeachment is starting to grow well beyond what could be considered a fringe movement. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll Conducted April 6-9 showed that 33% of Americans currently support Impeaching President Bush, coincidentally, only a similar amount supported impeaching Nixon at the start of the Watergate investigation. If and when Illinois HJR0125 hits the capitol and the individual charges are publicly investigated, that number is likely to grow rapidly. Combined with the very real likelihood that Rove is about to be indicted in the LeakGate investigation, and Bush is in real trouble beyond his plummeting poll numbers. His cronies in the Republican dominated congress will probably save him from the embarassment of an impeachment conviction, for now, but his Presidency will be all but finished.
2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of 3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal 4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of 5 a state legislature; and
6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering 7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically 9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without 10 warrant; and
11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized 12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, 13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States 14 Constitution; and
15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American 16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war 17 without charge or trial; and
18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration 19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a 20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the 21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the 22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and 23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and
24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified 25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an 26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential 27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to 28 investigate the matter; and
29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined
HJ0125 - 2 - LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r
1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it
2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE 4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the 5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S. 6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President 7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office 8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 9 States; and be it further
10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the 11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and 12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.
Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.
Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of the 500+ liberal pundits who, each month, are published in what has become one of the top five Liberal/progressive media sites in the US.
This article describes the latest thought process in a Democratic party totally devoid of any sense of reality. The DNC and its fellow travellers relentlessly rehash baseless allegations and repeat their attacks in their effort to undermine America and its ability to defend democracy and the U.S. in particular. Their aim is a castrated America reduced to the loweest common denominator and embracing the socialist nightmare.
The democrats are "our insurgents" making war on our country and its people. Patriots? They are traitors who will be crushed under the heels of real patriotic Americans.
by
MrT (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 6:35:57 AM
I am always amused by people who hide behind fake names, who make remarks like this. Sounds like right out of one of the toxic right wing talk radio idiots mouths-- Michael Savage, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh... They are the real traitors.
Rob Kall, editor
by
Rob Kall (691 articles, 3697 quicklinks, 290 diaries, 1357 comments)
on Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 6:35:30 PM
At Human Rights Watch, in their Rwanda paper, I took note of the following. Could this Mr T and BushCo have studied under this Mucchielli? I ask, cos it sure sounds like they all learned fearmongering at the same school, as expressed here, in part:
"Genocide: Ideology and Organization--Among the false ideas drawn on by political leaders and propagandists backing Habyarimana were the following:
-Despite the 1959 revolution, Tutsi continued to enjoy higher status and greater wealth than Hutu and were in some way responsible for continuing Hutu poverty.
-Tutsi posed a danger to Hutu, who were always the victims, whether of Tutsi military power or of Tutsi cunning, and so Hutu had a right and a duty to defend themselves.
-From 1990 through the 1994 genocide, propagandists used newspapers and radio to disseminate ideas hostile to the Tutsi. It was particularly the last idea — that Hutu were threatened and had to defend themselves — that proved most successful in mobilizing attacks on Tutsi from 1990 through the 1994 genocide. This idea may have been influenced by a study of propaganda methods.
Among documents found by Human Rights Watch in a government office after the genocide was a set of mimeographs summarizing methods of propaganda as analyzed by French professor, Roger Mucchielli, in a book, "Psychologie de la publicité et de la propagande".
One of the methods described is persuading people that the opponent intends to use terror against them; if this is done successfully, 'honest people' will take whatever measures they think necessary for legitimate self-defense."
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/rwanda0406/4.htm
by
Sigrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 9:53:18 AM
Gee, wonder if this response full of lies, and Demagoguery
...could be from a Republican? Has to be since every sentence is a lie or wrong information:
-This article describes the latest thought process in a Democratic party totally devoid of any sense of reality.
It doesn't describe a thought process at all. It describes what is happening in Illinois. A thought process description or position paper is completely different.
- The DNC and its fellow travellers relentlessly rehash baseless allegations and repeat their attacks in their effort to undermine America and its ability to defend democracy and the U.S. in particular.
I'm not a member of the DNC. Most Democrats were completely unaware of the Illinois legislature initiating this action two days ago. It happened completely under the radar screen. I would be interested to hear which allegations you believe are baseless. To be baseless means that they have no truth to them. Most of them are not in dispute. You can argue that they do not constitute a crime, but that is not what you are saying. As with most Republicans, you have little real understanding of most of the words you speak or type. Also, perhaps you could direct me to how any of the allegations pertain to anything that would defend America? You realize that there are secret courts that would legally provide the President, the FBI or other agencies a secret wiretap against those who might be a threat to the country. Doing so without even that formality is a felony and raises questions about whether mere political opponents and not just threats are being monitored.
- Their aim is a castrated America reduced to the loweest common denominator and embracing the socialist nightmare.
Lowest common denominators like torturing people? Lowest common denominators like holding people without a trial? By the way, Democrats are not socialists or communists or any other term of Demagoguery you Republicans like to throw out there. There is a Socialist and Communist party in the US. If that is what I or any other Democrat believed in, that is the party I would join. In fact, the largest socialist institution in the US is the American Military.
- The democrats are "our insurgents" making war on our country and its people.
Examples? Citations? None? Didnt think so.
- Patriots? They are traitors who will be crushed under the heels of real patriotic Americans.
Ah, yes, threats of violence. Who needs elections? Who needs due process? The real question is, do people Republicans like you prefer to be in power prefer to be called Fuhrer or Il Duce?
by
Steven Leser (178 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1194 comments)
on Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 7:02:43 AM
I think it is this attitude that only spawns arguments and simply gets NOWHERE:
"...could be from a Republican? Has to be since every sentence is a lie or wrong information"
Yes, because all Republicans seed wrong information and lie. Absolutes like this make me sick. Shut up until you have something realistic to say. This is exactly why so many people hate politics.
by
BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:36:44 AM
And, not only is that false, but it doesn't reflect very well on you and your opinions. That you would stoop to saying 'it has to be a republican because he's lying' really speaks volumes about your opinions. Grow up.
by
BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:38:30 AM
If you dont like my opinions or what I write, don't read it. You are free to do that, and you are free to move somewhere where the government censors things you dont like. You are also free to read only websites like Free Republic, which it would seem would be more to your liking.
by
Steven Leser (178 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1194 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 11:32:41 AM
This is where your train derailed by accepting his re-framing of the argument. I agree with your post, but you allowed yourself to be misdirected right here. It doesn't really matter who wins this argument of logic.
Rather then argue, acquiesce the small point. This ends the debate and your posted comment stands without further obfuscation.
But I can tell you this, there are a million people in Illinois ecstatic to see their State Legislature undertake House Rule 603 legislation.
by
Daniel Reed (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 1:47:05 AM
If you re-read my response, it doesnt say "All Republicans" lie and provide false information. Obviously, you never took a class in mathematical logic or philosophy or if you did, you didnt pass it. My assertion is that if you see a post full of lies, deception, demagoguery and devoid of facts and citations it will almost ALWAYS be from a Republican. Democrats, Liberals and Progressives, as a rule, are much more into reading multiple sources and providing links and facts to back up their assertions.
Sure, there are Republicans who don't lie, but you dont see that type of screed like that defacated forth from Mr T from Democrats/Liberals/Progressives. It is routine from the other side however. If you doubt me, I invite you to browse Free Republic, the most popular Republican site on the web, http://www.freerepublic.com . After you have read a few threads over there, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.
by
Steven Leser (178 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1194 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 5:38:40 PM
My assertion is that if you see a post full of lies, deception, demagoguery and devoid of facts and citations it will almost ALWAYS be from a Republican.
Original:
...could be from a Republican? Has to be since every sentence is a lie or wrong information:
"HAS TO BE" implies that if it has lies, it must be from a republican. That is very clear. Besides, if you write your articles only for people who "took a class in mathematical logic or philosophy" that is a pretty narrow minded approach. And if it is obvious to you that you can interpret my intelligence from an internet post, you better rethink your views.
I'm sorry if you are embarrassed on your own blog.
by
BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 6:49:06 PM
you didn't understand what I wrote, and now you are justifying your ignorance by suggesting my writing is flawed because I do not cater to the lowest common denominator reader who, like you, does not understand basic logic. And, like a typical troll, you are attempting to hijack the discussion from the actual thrust of the article.
By the way, in case you were about to dispute that this is about basic logic, most high school introduction to logic math classes and some of the easier portions of standardized tests like the SAT contain items like the below:
A statement is a lie. If the statement was a lie then it must have been uttered by a Republican. Assuming this is correct than which of the following is the best answer
A. All statements uttered by Republicans are always lies
B. If a statement was the truth, then it could never have been uttered by a Republican
C. Non Republicans always tell the truth
D. None of the above can be inferred from the passage
The answer is D
Anyone who has taken an IQ test or the SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT or other typical standardized tests will recognize this question AND the correct answer. And you think I should be embarrassed? That is funny. Sorry, I'm just not aiming at your kind of reader.
by
Steven Leser (178 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1194 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:03:05 PM
You got your own "logic problem" wrong. Look up what a contrapositive is and you'll see that answer C is actually correct. So by your own reasoning you must have never taken any sort of standardized test, because everyone who has should have gotten that right. Riiiight. I'm always a fan of the liberal "logic".
by
Patrick Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 11:09:46 PM
Yes, C is the contrapositive, but the contrapositive is not proven by what we are given as the statement.
I'll give you points for being a rare Republican that actually looks something up in the attempt to win an argument, but you didnt really understand what you read or you would know that a contrapositive has to be proven in logic in order for it to be "true". A contrapositive is not automatically a true statement.
by
Steven Leser (178 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1194 comments)
on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 2:12:46 PM
I don't know what you are talking about, but a contrapositive is always true (assuming that the original statement is true). "Recreations in the Theory of Numbers" by Albert Beiler, on page 45 of the second edition reads:
"In logic, there is a term called an 'implication': 'if p, then q.' ... Finally there is the 'contrapositive': 'if not q, then not p.' This is ALWAYS true."
If you do not have this book, perhaps click here the first link on contrapositive via Google will change your mind:
"An important fact to remember about the contrapositive, is that it always has the SAME truth value as the original conditional statement."
"An implication and its contrapositive are equivalent statements. When proving a theorem, it is often more convenient or more intuitive to prove the contrapositive instead."
Now that we have that settled, lets look at your logic argument:
"If the statement was a lie then it must have been uttered by a Republican."
Refining this to a raw implication of the form "if p then q", we obtain "if 'lie' then 'uttered by a Republican'". The the contrapositive is "if 'not uttered by a Republican' then 'not lie'". Thus "non-Republicans always tell the truth" is the contrapositive and the correct answer.
So yes, you did get it wrong. And yes I do know how to look things up to "win an argument". But no I didn't understand things wrong. It'd be pretty tough to get a degree in discrete mathematics without knowing what a contrapositive is.
by
Patrick Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 9:56:09 PM
Have you read the Bill of Rights lately? Better go over it again. We have not only a Right, but a Responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. We, The People. We are America. The Bush Adminstration is not America, and it has misrepresent us. It's time we do something about it!
by
fahrender (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 4:17:47 PM
You say 'we' have been misrepresented. Last time I checked, elections were based on the majority. Majority rules. Sure, protect minorities, but ultimately the reason our country is headed in this direction is because WE the CITIZENS chose Bush as a leader. Nobody is perfect. Sure, maybe he made a few mistakes, and that is where I agree with you. But to say we have been misrepresented is not correct. Bush doesn't seem to represent the Democratic party interests very well, duh. He's a Republican. What did you expect, honestly?
by
BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 11:06:28 PM
...as Al Gore said during his campaign, that the President of the United States is the one politician with the responsibility to represent ALL of the people.
As Clinton did when he vastly reduced the amount of welfare recipients, and put NAFTA in place and said abortion should be Safe, Legal and RARE. Note the emphasis on RARE, which he didnt have to say, had nothing to do with support from the Democratic Base and was an obvious bone to the conservative electorate. Given time, I am sure I could come up with additional examples, those were just off of the top of my head.
by
Steven Leser (178 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1194 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 11:28:37 AM
and al gore is expected (of course) to be the expert on the presidency. I'm not saying bush is, i'm just saying your basis is from al gore. not too stable, if you ask me. but thats just me.
by
BruceH (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 6:42:04 PM
Bush? That's riotously funny. You? Who argues about the meaning of what I write yet cannot follow basic logic? No wonder you are throwing such a fuss over this article. Brainless Bush is your kind of guy.
by
Steven Leser (178 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1194 comments)
on Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:06:00 PM
You sound like a child. Did too! Did not! Did too! Did not!
As for misrepresented, click here but 60% say yes, your 32% is not majority, and 8% are brain dead.
In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance, 60 percent said they disapprove and 8 percent said they do not know.
As for your highly touted election majority, here are the facts about your election majority. click here immaculate election On page 2, take note the major "Red Shift" in every state. Especially New Hampshire, where exit poll data was off by an impossible 9.5%. You would have a better chance of getting Monica Lewinski to...
Also note that Kerry never tallied over 52% in any state. Hmmm, that's funny since http://www.bradblog.com/ClintCurtisSummary.htm>Clint Curtis has click here an affidavit testifying to creating a 51%-49% vote flip software program. (See page 2, part 7, last two paragraphs) In addition to the affidavit, Clint has click here in front of the House Judiciary Committee and also passed a click here detector test. You probably idn't hear about these facts either.
They have seized on an affidavit Curtis wrote Dec. 6 about his allegations of vote fraud. The affidavit was initially published the same day on bradblog.com. On March 3, Curtis passed a lie detector test given by Tim Robinson, retired chief polygraph operator for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
click here CERT Report August 31, 2004 Looks like the Dept of Homeland Security noticed the problem with Diebold Election software prior to the 2004 election too. I guess the news media was just too busy to track this story.
See how much more effective that is BruceH. You should try the same thing with your point of view. I hope you can convince me to see it your way.
by
Daniel Reed (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 1:27:18 AM
