Fair is fair!

Brother Wolfie

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM

  (0+)

...and I was particularly proud of you, David, Dave, Mike G., Colleen, Ben and all OpEdNews members that were able to attend per live-stream and even liven up the chat. You should have seen some of the messages flying back and forth in that chat window while you guys were delivering your information...at times it was a bit stagnent and even disruptive but Sunday, especially Sunday, the feeling there (chat) was beyond anything I have ever seen before. We're on the move! We have no fear! We will succeed! And we understand!! Time to roll.

Let me take this opportunity to tell all OEN readers about the collection of video clips David & Co. have re-hosted to beforedowningstreet.org : go there and view these videos. You may have missed the conf. but you're still in that same boat with all of all, so get over there and update yourself. Vince B.'s book laid out the groundwork and provides the roadmap for legal folks but it's up to you and me to make this happen. Don't think for a minute that it cannot happen. I stand here (I'm realy sitting ;-)) today holding my hand over my heart and I say WE WILL SUCCEED ! This will work. And it's not going to take very long. Read David's article here or better yet, go to afterdowningstreet.org and read it there. Listen to Bugliosi talk........as they say at the BurgerKink, feel the fire ! THIS IS HUGE and IT IS HOT !! AND IT'S REAL. I've seen and heard a lot of dis-info in the last 8 years or so and I can recognize it pretty easily. This is real. Bush is gonna burn baby burn. We need to keep track of him btw. Not that he escapes to his new ranch in south america. Cheney? Will probably shoot himself in the face. He's good with faces and guns.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM

  (0+)

it after, not before downing street dot org;

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM

  (0+)

when did he change froma Professor of Law to a Professor of Situational Law? Indeed, I didn't know that there was such a specialty, but here he is practicing it.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM

  (0+)

just to be fair, I've asked him for an answer to your question. Perhaps (!?) he will respond. He has the link to this article so there's not much standing in the way of a response.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:22:25 PM

  (0+)

the wall Street Journal.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:56:31 PM

  (0+)

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:04:01 PM

  (0+)

well done, John. Well done.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:45:42 AM

  (0+)

The idea that voting in a rigged election will change anything is absurd. The idea that it is possible to shut the country down is absurd. Those who still have jobs and homes aren't going to risk becoming homeless. The idea that our corrupt Congress and our corrupt justice system might be of any use is absurd.

Unless people realize that our system is totally corrupt and boycott the election, nothing will change.

Fund anti-war pro-impeachment candidates? In '06 there were about forty more anti-war, pro-impeachment candidates who won their elections than were seated, but the elections were stolen and the Democrats seated their Republican pro-war, anti-impeachment opponents. Only six Democrats filed Federal Election Contests with Congress over the stolen elections and all six were dismissed by Congress without even looking at the evidence.

The problem isn't with the people in government, the problem is with our Constitution because it does not give us the final say on who takes office, does not allow us to remove fraudulently-elected officials from office, and gives the final say to Congress and to an unelected Supreme Court, not to the people.

I know you're giddy with excitement, but this is just more campaign spam. Get people excited, get them to vote in the rigged election that you KNOW will be stolen, and then organize protests after it is stolen to help grow the prison-industrial complex and justify bigger budgets for Homeland Security.

Obama is going to concede to McCain "for the good of the country" just as Gore and Kerry did. What they mean is that it is for the good of the Democratic Party if the Republicans are in power so that the Democrats can continue their pro-war, pro-corporate agenda, but keep blaming it on the Republicans.

Hasn't anybody been paying attention? Hasn't anyone read the Constitution?

Election faud litigation goes nowhere because the Constitution made Congress, not the courts, the sole and final judge of the elections, qualifications and returns of Members of Congress. So when election fraud litigation is filed, the attorney for Congress intervenes and tells the court to butt out, that the court has no Constitutional jurisdiction to intervene. And it doesn't. U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 5. Nobody there has ever filed election fraud litigation or followed any of the cases that have been filed? Not a single person in that conference has even bothered to read the Constitution?

There won't be a change to the system as long as people continue to place their hope and faith in it and keep trying to work within it instead of working to abolish it and establish a democracy where the ultimate power resides with the people, not with the corporate puppets in Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. 

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:57:01 PM

  (0+)

...from the conference. To work towards indicting Bush & Cheney and Rice and perhaps more is more important than the election. It doesn't matter who wins this election, the criminals from the current cabal must be brought to see the light of justice. That is what I heard not only David say but also Dave and Ben and Colleen and Mike etc. Swanson is Swanson. Love him or leave him. The conference was not about Swanson. Of all the words used over the weekend, I absorbed it all and squeezed the sponge a slight bit to get the overall picture .....and Mark, it was good. I agree with you in many ways e.g. Swanson's asking people to call their Senators and Reps. I'll save that part and a few other steps he pointed out because they are not necessarily the most effective but that's my personal opinion. If other wish to do so, all the better. As Dave Lindorff put it (I believe it was Dave), by all means, if you wish to vote, go ahead if it makes you feel better. It can't hurt! But to work with what we have to have Bush indicted, arrested, tried and convicted is much larger and much more important. No disillusion here, Mark. I can still smell a pile of sh*t from the other side of the hill, rest assured.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:19:47 PM

  (0+)

Tony wrote:

that's not the message I brought away

...from the conference. To work towards indicting Bush & Cheney and Rice and perhaps more is more important than the election.

You do know, I'm sure, that there is a current and ongoing scandal having to do with the corruption and politicization of our justice department? You are aware that whenever a prosecutor at any level attempts to prosecute anyone who is part of the elite cabal, they get framed, lose their job, and end up trying to defend themselves instead of prosecuting others?

You are also aware, I'm sure, that the Democrats confirmed Mukasey as Attorney General, and that he and the Supreme Court will protect the cabal from having to comply with subpoenas or being penalized for contempt?

I'm sure you know that any successes at lower levels will be appealed to the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court is corrupt and partisan, and that there is no possible appeal from a Supreme Court decision?

It doesn't matter who wins this election, the criminals from the current cabal must be brought to see the light of justice. That is what I heard not only David say but also Dave and Ben and Colleen and Mike etc. Swanson is Swanson. Love him or leave him. The conference was not about Swanson.

Personally, I love him. Naivete, ignorance, and all. I just hate to see him putting his energies into working within a totally corrupt system instead of working to abolish it and establish a democracy.

While it doesn't matter who wins the "election," as both candidates are pro-war and both will pardon everyone from the Bush administration, it does matter that by voting, people will have granted this corrupt government their mandate, their delegated power, and their consent to continue the wars and to continue looting the treasury at the rate of trillions of dollars every year. Once people vote, the government can claim to have been democratically elected, to be a legitimate government, and to have the consent of the American people. But there is no accountability. There is no Constitutional way that the American people can hold their "elected" officials responsible. That's the problem. 

The Prevailing Theory

If the Constitution gave us some way to hold our "elected" officials accountable, we'd have at least a republic, if not a democracy. We don't.

Of all the words used over the weekend, I absorbed it all and squeezed the sponge a slight bit to get the overall picture .....and Mark, it was good. I agree with you in many ways e.g. Swanson's asking people to call their Senators and Reps. I'll save that part and a few other steps he pointed out because they are not necessarily the most effective but that's my personal opinion. If other wish to do so, all the better. As Dave Lindorff put it (I believe it was Dave), by all means, if you wish to vote, go ahead if it makes you feel better. It can't hurt!

Well yes, it can hurt. As long as people voted, the Apartheid regime in South Africa was considered to be the legitimate South African government, democratically elected, with the support of the people, and the opponents of Apartheid were considered to be Communists, terrorists, rebels, insurgents, traitors, and dissidents. The African National Congress was criminalized, Steven Biko was killed, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island for 27 years, and countries like the U.S. supported the Apartheid regime openly because it was the legitimate, democratically-elected government of South Africa. It was only after their successful election boycott, when very few people voted, that the world had to accept that the people of South Africa did not want Apartheid, that the Apartheid regime was not democratically elected, did not have the support of the people, and was not a legitimate government. That decriminalized the ANC, released Mandela from prison, and led to honest elections. There is no other way.

In Cuba the Batista regime, despite its ties to the Mafia, was considered to be the legitimate, democratically-elected goverment with the support and consent of the Cuban people, until they had a successful election boycott. Once that happened Fidel Castro and his handful of followers knew they had the support of more than 90% of the Cuban people to overthrow the Batista regime. And they did.

When people vote (and in rigged elections like ours it doesn't matter who they vote for), it tells the world that the government holding the election is a legitimate, democratically-elected government with the support and consent of the people. That support and consent can hurt when it is given to a government engaged in crimes against humanity, wars of aggression that have already killed more than seven million innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Really. It hurts. Torture and crimes against humanity are NOT harmless and painless. 

But to work with what we have to have Bush indicted, arrested, tried and convicted is much larger and much more important. No disillusion here, Mark. I can still smell a pile of sh*t from the other side of the hill, rest assured.

If there was even one chance in a billion that Bush could be indicted, arrested, tried, and convicted within the present system in the U.S., I'd agree with you. 

Those who make citizens' arrests will themselves be arrested and they won't all be lucky enough to get judges to dismiss the cases against them. Those who bring indictments will join the 900-plus U.S. prosecutors currently fighting their unjust firings or frame-ups. Any trials and convictions in lower courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court that installed Bush and Cheney in the first place, with a new Chief Justice appointed by them, will not hold them accountable. 

It makes me very sad to have to rain on your parade. I'd like to be marching with you. But you're marching off a cliff.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:56:49 PM

  (0+)

"Terrorism"?

Waiting for the all the bad guys to die of old age and be replaced by good guys?

Seriously, you make a good point about not voting and not giving legitimacy with your references to South Africa and apartheid, but who in the world is going to notice and care if the numbers of Americans that vote is only 35 million instead of 100 million?

Outside of lawful solutions I don't see any solutions but unlawful ones. I don't see the current crop of Americans as being up to a storming of the Bastille. Do you?

I will be frank with you, I consider that "terrorism" just might be the moral solution to the problem of America as an island of lawlessness inhabited by craven opportunists and moral insentients.

Violence is wrong generally. And killing is wrong generally. But there comes a time when violence is self defence. The 95 percent of humanity that don't have even the illusion of representation in the US Congress have a right not to have the political leaders of the 5 percent (however they become leaders) use the United States of America as a sort of bandit fortress from which to launch violent attacks on the rest of humanity.

Morality might be somewhat relative but the human beings that live on earth in 2008 are pretty close to having consensus that being American is not a good enough reason to permit a torturer and a murderer to torture them and to kill them. Hey all humans have a capacity for violence - we curtail it in exchange for a reciprocal curtailing for the common good, but Americans are breaking their part of the bargain.

Terrorism against Americans MAY be the only moral way to get a better system of checks and balances if Americans can't or won't uphold the rule of law.  The 95 percent of the planet that aren't represented in the US Congress are not the stupidest 95 percent on the planet.  Nor are they the most peaceful. 

Seriously Mark, you criticise one plan, fair enough, but can you offer another?

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:14:37 PM

  (0+)

Don't you ever put something in quotes to make it look as if I'd said it when I didn't.

What is your preferred alternative Mark?

"Terrorism"?

Waiting for the all the bad guys to die of old age and be replaced by good guys?

Seriously, you make a good point about not voting and not giving legitimacy with your references to South Africa and apartheid, but who in the world is going to notice and care if the numbers of Americans that vote is only 35 million instead of 100 million?

Outside of lawful solutions I don't see any solutions but unlawful ones. I don't see the current crop of Americans as being up to a storming of the Bastille. Do you?

I will be frank with you, I consider that "terrorism" just might be the moral solution to the problem of America as an island of lawlessness inhabited by craven opportunists and moral insentients.

Violence is wrong generally. And killing is wrong generally. But there comes a time when violence is self defence. The 95 percent of humanity that don't have even the illusion of representation in the US Congress have a right not to have the political leaders of the 5 percent (however they become leaders) use the United States of America as a sort of bandit fortress from which to launch violent attacks on the rest of humanity.

Morality might be somewhat relative but the human beings that live on earth in 2008 are pretty close to having consensus that being American is not a good enough reason to permit a torturer and a murderer to torture them and to kill them. Hey all humans have a capacity for violence - we curtail it in exchange for a reciprocal curtailing for the common good, but Americans are breaking their part of the bargain.

Terrorism against Americans MAY be the only moral way to get a better system of checks and balances if Americans can't or won't uphold the rule of law.  The 95 percent of the planet that aren't represented in the US Congress are not the stupidest 95 percent on the planet.  Nor are they the most peaceful. 

Seriously Mark, you criticise one plan, fair enough, but can you offer another?

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM

  (0+)

If any reader thought I was quoting you because I used quotes around the word terrorism instead of inverted commas then I apologise.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:18:09 AM

  (0+)

Violence and terrorism are NOT effective. Military superpowers are prepared to meet violence and terrorism with greater violence and terrorism.

Mark that above, IS your quote.

When it comes to getting rid of government that is unrepresentative, that violence sometimes works in replacing governments in North America is indisputable. The United States independence war was violent and its effectiveness in getting rid of the monarchical government of England is undisputable. The US was founded violently. The civil war too was violent.   

That the United States is a military superpower, and currently the preeminent military superpower is what makes it different to South Africa and what undermines the South African example. 

It seems like you are, in your scenario, hoping that the outside world would  intervene to provide the counterbalancing force if, an unrepresentative government took power in the United States.  Although you say the government couldn't CLAIM power if the people didn't vote in sufficient numbers, I think you know that power would be CLAIMED, as it always is,  by those who think they can hold it. 

The quesion is, in your scenario, how is the claim to be met?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are, in your scenario, essentially assuming that the outside world would provide the force to resist such an unjust claim. Or are you thinking that the world media would somehow shame some American's into giving up their claims of government? 

I just don't see, and I am open to being shown, how your non violent approach (of not voting) could remove a government that would be willing, as you concede military superpowers are, to use violence to hold power?

Economic sanctions played a role in changing South Africa peacefully. But the United States unlike South Africa is a veto holding United Nations permanent member.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:52:47 AM

  (0+)

...is ABSURD, too, MarkE.

You may need it for Kicking Ass

...or Running away from the Gestapo! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:46:53 AM

  (0+)

Attorney General First & Last Name, 

On behalf of the dead (your State or Country here) soldiers who were killed fighting George W. Bush’s war against Iraq on “false pretenses”, I implore you to investigate the above “murder” charges, and if warranted, indict and prosecute George W. Bush accordingly.

Sincerely,

Your First & Last Name

Your Address

Your Phone Number      

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:55:14 PM

  (0+)

the people without whom Bush could not have done anything at all?

The people in Congress who voted to allow him to do whatever he wanted?

The people you are writing to?

Aren't you going to ask them to investigate, indict, and convict themselves as well?

There are only two or three districts in this country with a representative who didn't vote for every crime of which Bush and Cheney are guilty. All the rest are equally guilty. 

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:05:35 PM

  (0+)

Mark,

I have to ask myself if you followed the conference or not. The idea is not to work within the corrupt system, it is to work with what we have....to have the indictment come from within the USA or from a foreign country. Either way, our work is cut out for us. Bugliosi's book is the groundwork and roadmap. Legal enteties are already working on this. It's no longer a question if anyone with a legal background will pick this up but how they will move forward with it.

Congress? Forget it. As Dave pointed out, we already know what to expect from the Congress : zilch in the way of assistance and loads in the way of blockage. Durnig the conference, it was repeatedly said that we will have to bypass the Congress.

Supreme Court? Not part of the discussion. Not required. Refer to Bugliosi's plan: online video clips should suffice.

I think it better we all review what went down during the conference before we debate or discuss the contents or the event itself.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:04:35 AM

  (0+)

All the rest are equally guilty. 

I think is was Saturday.....the question came up as to how long the list is or could be. It's a long list so we'll have to be happy with and concentrate on the few at the top. Why would Congress block an indictment of Bush or Cheney? Simple, because members of Congress colluded and are in affect themselves guilty....as are most of the top brass in the military....and MSM.

You can't put the whole damned country in jail for War Crimes.

Will this movement succeed? Also covered in the convention. It may succeed and it may not. If it does, good. If it doesn't, at least we tried.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:09:16 AM

  (0+)

This is the message I received from Senator Clinton's office when I tried to contact her re: impeachment proceedings

Re: Your Message to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Senator_Clinton@clinton.senate.gov to sdw55
show details Aug 21 Reply

Thank you for your e-mail.  It is very important to me to know the issues
that are of concern to you.  A growing number of my constituents are now
choosing to communicate with me via e-mail.  I hope you will understand
that, because of the volume and range of e-mails I receive, it can take
some time to send a response that specifically addresses the subject
raised in your message.  I do, however, want to let you know immediately
that your message has been received.  Hearing from you and others through
e-mail helps me to quickly learn the views and interests of  New Yorkers
and others, which is very helpful to me in my work in the United States
Senate.   I hope you will continue to monitor my work through my website
at http://clinton.senate.gov, and I welcome hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

I received the same from Senator Schumer.

I would like to indict them, also.

by Sharon Froehlich (0 articles, 9 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 32 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:32:50 AM

  (0+)

I find it amazing that some people don't believe any laws were broken by this administration.  They assume either ignorance of the law is an excuse for violations of it, or that breaking laws when it suites the Executive Branch to do so is fine by them. 

The President is bound by his oath of office to "Faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  When people talk about holding this administration accountable it has nothing to do with getting even or going after Bush for honest mistakes or decisions he made as commander-in-chief.  It is based on published accounts of critical mistakes that arose from willful and arrogant efforts to ignore laws, bypass the normal checks and balances and do whatever was expedient instead of what was expected of him as President.  This was not faithful execution of the duties of the President or defending the Constitution of the United States. 

It reflects what appears by many to be a willful disregard for the Constitution and the laws of the United States.To suggest the following information from public sources be disregarded as irrelevant strikes me as insane. We know Curveball provided much of the critical intelligence information that justified the Iraq invasion and that most of his intelligence was later proven false.  By all accounts, Curveball was known to be an unreliable and discredited source of information.  CIA intelligence is reported to have had a better source of information high up in the Hussein government who was ignored and his intelligence (proven later to be correct) was classified as unreliable by the VP's office.  Was this just a stupid mistake or was it a serious effort to mislead and not provide Congress or the public with a balanced assessment of the Iraq threat?  The efforts to bypass FISA have been reported as solely so the Administration did not have to deal with any oversight.  The politicization of the DOJ was a willful violation of US laws that apparently were known to be illegal at the time they were being done and contrary to the mission of the DOJ.  John Yoo’s extreme interpretation of torture, treatment of prisoners of war and wiretapping were not views widely held by any other reputable individuals in the legal profession.  The use of his extreme legal opinions can legitimately be viewed as a willful effort to ignore the laws of the US by embracing the most extreme legal advice available.  The numerous instances where the Executive Branch ignored scientific evidence in favor of a political agenda (FDA, EPA, Energy, Ag, etc.), failure to enforce regulations and laws on the businesses Departments of Government regulated, failure to seek competitive bidding on government contracts and ignoring public input into government decision making processes are indicative of a pattern of abuse and willful violation of the laws by those departments.

I don’t think any US administration is perfect.  There are bound to be mistakes made during any Administration by underlings or overzealous individuals who may think they are doing the President’s bidding and it would be unfair to blame a President just because of a few bad apples.  However, this administration set a new tone entirely for extreme behavior, willful violations of the law and the number of bad apples in the Executive Branch.  Turning ones head might sound magnanimous, but fosters a culture of corruption and negligence in government that does not serve the interests of the public, and encourages more of the same from future leaders.  If we want something better from our leaders we better demand it or it will only get worse in future years.  Turning our heads this time makes future excesses like we have seen in this administration not only possible but highly probable.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:43:52 PM

  (0+)

What happened to put Bill and Hillary behind bars after White Water.  Several people who knew what really happened   suddenly disappeared.  Are we upset because we were threatened by terriorist and Bush stood up to him and wiped him out.  No one remembers the people of Iraq dancing in the streets when the Saddam statues were over turned..   and it's now a fact, we are winning the war in Iraq. 

Stop burning buildings, breaking windows and turning over cars and start doing peaceful protests.  I think we would be more angry at Congress for not drilling for oil. 

Who ever  is in office as President gets the blame when things go bad, but never receive praise when things are good. 

Why is no one upset that Obama hangs out with the guy who bombed buildings or involved in a Hate America Church Group ...  anti whites... just wait, if Obama is elected you think we have racial problems now, us white folks will be sitting in the back of the bus.

Please someone tell Obama Iran and Russia are  not a small countries.

by don bybee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 206 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:59:05 PM

  (0+)

Punch (the Republican) is swinging wildly, hitting everything in sight (those photos were staged, by the way, the Iraqis weren't dancing in the streets, and we're not winning now) and trying to terrorize Judy.

Judy (the Democrat) is crying and asking for help. Will the nice, good government please help Judy? Will the audience ask the nice, good government to help Judy? If you close your eyes and wish real hard, and want it badly enough (thanks, SNL & Tony for posting since I don't watch TV), and just sprinkle some magic dust, the nice, good government (which may have a few minor faults, but then don't we all? Don't we all spend our days torturing and killing innocent people for Halliburton?) will help Judy.

And nobody sees the strings attached to the puppets. Nobody sees that the Democrats always concede to the Republicans so that they can continue to support the same war criminal, economy-wrecking agenda, while continuing to blame the Republicans for everything. They did it! All we did was vote for it and we couldn't help that because Ralph Nader made us take impeachment off the table! It is all Ralph Nader's fault! If he hadn't opposed General Motors, the corporations wouldn't have had to take over the government, JFK wouldn't have had to have been assassinated, and 9/11 wouldn't have happened! 

What's a few war crimes between friends? Who cares about a few more million people being killed in our wars of aggression if we can all get out and vote for another Democrat who can concede to another Republican so that we can keep blaming the Republicans and believing that the system works -- or at least it would work if we really really wanted it to badly enough.

Never mind that the Constitution never trusted us with any real power because the framers believed that those who owned the country should be able to rule it. Go to a protest if getting maced and arrested makes you feel better. Ask the corrupt prosecutors in the just-us system to prosecute the people who rigged the elections to put them in office. But be sure to vote for one of the war criminals running for President because Halliburton and Blackwater can still squeeze a few more billions or maybe even trillions out of the defense budget if you'll just vote for one of the war criminals who can be counted on to fund any war that PNAC wants.

Watch the Punch and Judy show! See! This is a special show! The rest of the time Judy doesn't fight back, but now she is pretending that she doesn't like Punch whipping her bloody. We all know better. She loves it! She's just pretending that she doesn't like it to make the show more exciting.

You believe that the two parties are in opposition instead of in cahoots, right? Just because they both vote for war crimes and deregulation doesn't mean that they don't differ on the REALLY important issues like abortion, guns, gays, etc. Ignore the seven million dead and the millions more innocent bodies piling up in Afghanistan and Iraq -- think about your right to bear arms, have an abortion, marry a closeted gay Republican Congressman (if he'd just stop voting against gay marriage), and all the other REALLY important progressive (or conservative) issues.

Don't let anyone distract you with nonsense about democracy or human rights. Just get out there and vote to show that you don't care which candidate the rigged voting machines or the Supreme Court installs as President, as long as the fascist wars of aggression and crimes against humanity continue, so that you can feel important and progressive when you hold conferences and urge people to write letters opposing the war crimes as soon as they get home from voting for the war criminals.

This isn't democracy vs. fascism, it is Democrats vs. Republicans, Punch vs. Judy, the NFL, NASCAR, American Idol....  It isn't as if anybody is going to get hurt if we continue the status quo of killing millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq -- they're not real people and they don't really matter. Who cares if the people we're voting for voted to fund wars of aggression that have already killed more innocent people than Hitler killed Jews? Who cares if they are both committed to continuing the war crimes? Didn't we SAY we opposed such things while we voted to delegate our power to war criminals and legitimize the fascist governmenht committing the war crimes?

That absolves us, right?

Now shut up and watch the Punch and Judy show.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:49:49 PM

  (0+)

How for 20 years he sat silently as his minister, the radical preacher
Jeremiah Wright, said he hated America — the same preacher who
blamed the 9/11 attacks on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

   The involvement of convicted felon Tony Resko in the purchase of Obama's$1,300,000 home.

   His despicable association with his friend William Ayers, who was on the FBI’s Most Wanted list for over 10 terrorist attacks.

   The fact that at age 25, Obama was backed by a radical Muslim activist close to the Saudi royal family when he applied to Harvard Law School.

by don bybee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 206 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:46:50 PM

  (0+)

The fact that at age 25, Obama was backed by a radical Muslim activist close to the Saudi royal family when he applied to Harvard Law School.

Yeah? Was he ever caught, the way Daddy and Junior Bush have been many times, kissing and holding hands with the Saudi royal family? Are you complaining that he isn't close enough to the Saudi royal family to suit you?

So which is it, Bybee, you don't trust a President close to the Saudi royal family, or you're the neo-con Republican you're pretending to be who thinks that the closer a President is to the Saudi royal family the better?

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:06:11 PM

  (0+)

...with the Clinton thing... so up to his eyeballs in that he can't see who the real criminals are, he's comparing mountains of Sh*t with Mole hills.

Take a big dump, ByBee...you'll feel better once you figure it out! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:00:58 AM

  (0+)

have you missed lots of info.

"   The fact that at age 25, Obama was backed by a radical Muslim activist close to the Saudi royal family when he applied to Harvard Law School. "

how about the fact that the Bush family, NOW, still stays with the bin Laden family when they go to Saudi Arabia? How about the fact that the Bushes were in business with the bin Laden's throught the Carlyle Group and they were meeting with bin Laden's brother ON SEPT. 11th? That business? Military contracting... how about the fact that Bush let all the family members get out of the country after 9/11; no questions asked about the whereabouts of Osama, no questions about the attacks of 9/11. Hell, the tax payers paid for the jet fuel to fly them to safety without one single question from the investigation.

You know, if you are going to spend your life just watching Fox News, then you had better be prepared for coming up short in the facts department, on sites like this one.

by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM

  (0+)

a picture of Pappa Bush holding hands with bin Ladens? There are so many on the "internets", all you have to do is look. Do you think if you found a pic of Osama holding hands with the daddy of the "most wanted terrorist" that that wouldn't be from and center, everyday, on Fox News?

You got to wake up. You think 19 cavedwellers with box cutters beat the most extensive defense system in history, 4 out of 4 times in one day? Get real. Not one single pilot even had time to hit one little distress button? Burlingame, a real fighter pilot (not a bomber pilot like McCain) and a Guardsman and antihijacking instructor, just gave up his plane and walked quietly to the back? Because some 5' 2" guy with a boxcutter told him too? He's 6' 4" and trained to f people up.

Wake up. Do some research.

by scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:20:38 PM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   This is very well written and certainly reports on the Conference. Unfortunately I believe the entire subject is one of wishful thinking. By all means, give it a whirl, but don't be surprised when it goes nowhere.

by Marian Elliott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:40:06 PM

  (0+)

if you go nowhere with this, this movement will go nowhere for you.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:11:38 AM

  (0+)

You said

Will this movement succeed? Also covered in the convention. It may succeed and it may not. If it does, good. If it doesn't, at least we tried.

This seems to be a fairly laissez-faire attitude towards the movement that is more important than the stealing of the election.

David Swanson said about the election

It is likely to be close, and it is likely to be stolen.

Yes, it is, as have the past two, and this is not okay with a lot of us. I admire your belief that the exact people who have been complicit in foisting these false elections, wars, murders, and lies upon us for at least eight years will now be willing to take or make someone take, responsibility. I wish I could believe in it, but experience teaches us differently.

Not voting for the crooks and liars who make up the government makes more sense to focus on now. We need to make that kind of statement in November. We need to let the government know that we will not accept their blatant lies and not mandate their corruption.

It is important not to vote. I agree with Mark Smith

Unless people realize that our system is totally corrupt and boycott the election, nothing will change.

Fund anti-war pro-impeachment candidates? In '06 there were about forty more anti-war, pro-impeachment candidates who won their elections than were seated, but the elections were stolen and the Democrats seated their Republican pro-war, anti-impeachment opponents. Only six Democrats filed Federal Election Contests with Congress over the stolen elections and all six were dismissed by Congress without even looking at the evidence.
 

The actual Nov. 2008 stolen election to be is more important now.

by Sharon Froehlich (0 articles, 9 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 32 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:29:16 AM

  (0+)

You could not vote as Mark suggests and advocate for others not to vote if you want to.

But if there is an election on 4 November then you are going to have your work cut out for you to stop either Obama or McCain from CLAIMING the Presidency afterwards regardless of how much you succeed in reducing voter turnout.

My point is that voting, or strategically not voting, is not of itself going to be enough to fix current problems.

An Obama Presidency, without accountability for Bush and co, still leaves America vulnerable to justified terrorism against it from foreigners.

Terrorism against Americans has been morally justified since you re-elected Bush. It becomes more likely every day the Bush isn't repudiated because would be terrorists growing up and learning the tools of that trade.

Unless Americans DEMOSTRATE REAL respect for the rule of law, they won't get the protections of the rule of law from foreigners. And they can't get respect for the rule of law domestically either.

When you really don't have the rule of law, every person foreign and domestic, with a grudge is a potential terrorist.

Its possible for you to both not vote (as Mark says) and to support avenues of legal accountability (as Tony says). Its possible.

It is not possible though that laws against torture and aggressive invasion can be set aside without consequences. Some of the worlds 6.3 billion non-Americans are going to get violent and take action against Americas if you do that. And that has nothing to do with them being religious nuts though some of them might also be religious nuts.

Its not possible for American Presidents to model terrorism whilst fighting terrorism without creating terrorism. American Presidents are too conspicuous in the world to get away with hypocrisy on torture and aggressive invasion.

Even if Obama was not the FISA immunity granting person that he is he still couldn't put all the pieces together again. The world needs an example of American justice to be able to believe in American justice. And the sooner that example is given the sooner terrorisms greatest recruiting tool and greatest incentive will be removed.

My scepticism about legal accountability without the support of impeachment (which would imply a political will in the populace) is that it can come faster than the next 9-11 which will drive the American populace nuts again.

In a fight between lawless Americans and the rest of the world that might choose to become terrorists I have absolutely no doubt the world will run of Americans faster than it runs out of terrorists.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:55:41 AM

  (0+)

The only way to move the incumbent House Democrats to call for impeachment hearings to start (not end) prior to the election is to

ACTIVELY & RUTHLESSLY

DO Negative Campaigning & Protesting in the Districts of Incumbent House Democrats Who Refuse To Discuss Holding Impeach Hearings

In Colorado we have been somewhat ruthless about it accusing our
Rep. Udall of being a "traitor to his oath and Constitution".

Udall is running for the US Senate. 

In the past his reply emails to constituents have been
terse, with his opposition to impeachment summed up in a simple statement hat its just a difference of opinion. 

Udall's responses recently have changed and expanded dramatically as Udall is obviously now exploring the possibility of his having to endorse at least the holding of hearings.

We of course don't know if he will formally announce support for impeachment but his recent emails to voters indicate that he is now seriously debating (with himself at least) the need to hold them. 

Udall's change in thinking on impeachment hearings would not have happened if We Colorado Impeachment Advocates had not literally gone on the political warpath against him and campaigned negatively and protested negatively and commented on Udall news articles "negatively" in every possible publication.   Udall is in a Senate race that is "too close to call" and Colorado is one of the "battle ground states".  We have been contacted by progressive Colorado bloggers and others in the Udall campaign asking us to "back off" so we know we are making a difference.

Impeachment advocates across the US should do the same negative protesting, campaigning and news article commenting about their own  incumbent House Democrats.

Do this right up to the election, even if the House ends its session prior.  The House Dems need to know we are serious and will attempt to un-elect them.

The Left of the Democratic Party needs to know that they are not alone in their pro-impeachment feelings.  They will join us if we constantly do something public to show that a local in-district movement exists.

Bob Fertik recently appointed me Colorado State Impeachment Coordinator for Democrats.com and I just started emailing to Colorado Democrats (through Democrats.com) with a survey letter asking for a simple yes or no to the question of "whether or not Bush and Cheney should be impeached."

So far 99% of Colorado Democrats in Democrats.com that have replied,  have said "Yes, Bush and Cheney Should Be Impeached". 

So, What Is Conyers Waiting For?

Besides the opportunity to pressure incumbent Democratic congressmen who are in tight races, there exists another opportunity to pressure incumbent House Dems who have no or very weak opposition and are in little danger of failing to be re-elected.  Most of these Democrats who are in "safe seats" are Very Sensitive to newspaper article comments and protest signs which tend to suggest that  They Are Not The American Patriots They Claim To Be.

We have found that the achilles heel of incumbent House Democrats
IS Any Public Claim That THEY are less than 100% patriotic in their willingness to Defend Our Constitution.  The public claim that They are traitors to their Oath to protect Our Constitution sends shivers up their backsides.  We say  that any House Democrat who won't honor his oath to defend our Constitution surely won't get you single payer healthcare.

If You All Do The Same Negative Campaigning In Your own States from now until the election, we can bring enough pressure on the incumbent House Democrats to get impeachment hearings started prior to the election. 

Additionally, since we are doing this type of negative campaigning on only "one issue", their failure to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, we all can easily shift to supporting them for re-election "after" they begin to support impeachment.  They will appreciate that.

If you cannot do this yourself, get someone else to do it.

Godspeed today and until we get hearings.  God save the US Constitution.

John

John Kennedy, Denver CO, 43 yr Democratic voter,
Obama delegate to the Denver Democratic Convention, and organizer of the
Impeach Colorado Coalition  http://ImpeachCO.com 

..

by John H Kennedy (12 articles, 7 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 281 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:13:52 AM

  (0+)

Until Americans stop fearing and start caring about their government not much will change. Most of us are terrified that the CIA will come busting in at 4am and sweep us away to be tortured in Syria. It is clear that third parties are the way to go but Americans believe the hype and vote against our interests, even though all previous presidents have been compulsive liars as well. It is quite sad. I am beginning to wonder if we are suffering from a collective Stockhom Syndrome or if we are just masochists in general.

by Nfamous (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 104 comments [48 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:26:41 PM

  (0+)

Most of us are terrified that the CIA will come busting in at 4am and sweep us away to be tortured in Syria.

Things aren't that bad, yet. It takes time to corrupt an organisation and the CIA hasn't had time to be that corrupted yet. Also there are good former CIA people acting as pro impeachment activists. 

When the brownshirts start knocking on the doors of ordinary people then ordinary people will, mostly, have no defenses. 

The front line of defence in democracy is probably the sentinels. Those with time on their hands. Older people may make for poor insurgents  and they won't stand a chance against brownshirt thugs so their smart defense is to stop the brownshirts from coming into being.  Don't fight them on the doorstep with old bones and withered muscles cut them off by defending the rule of law. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:13:29 AM

  (0+)

It was the highest law of our land that nullified an election, stopped the votes from being counted, and in a decision that neither followed nor set precedent, and therefore wasn't even a legal decision, installed Bush as President. Bush then had the power to appoint more of his cronies to the Supreme Court.

When Rockefeller wants something done, he tells the people on his policy-making bodies, like the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations, they tell Poppy Bush, he tells Cheney, and Cheney tells Bush-The-Decider, who then announces that it was his decision and it is done. In an Obama Presidency the chain-of-command would change slightly. Rockefeller would tell the TC or CFR, they'd tell Poppy, Poppy would tell Joe Lieberman, Obama's mentor and one of Bush's biggest supporters, Lieberman would tell Obama, and Obama-The-Decider would announce that it was his decision and it would be done.

Hitler was a big proponent of the rule of law. He boasted that everything that he did was legal. He made the laws, so, like Bush, whose grandfather Prescott supported Hitler, he made anything that he did legal. Our Supreme Court believes in a unitary presidency, meaning that if the President does it, it is legal, which unfortunately came a little too late for Richard Nixon.

While a government that does not have the consent of the governed can try to hold onto power by force, it becomes an illegitimate government.

Your attitude, Brett, seems to be that unless you can overthrow the government, you have no reason not to vote for it.

Voting is the act of delegating your power, granting your mandate, and giving your consent to a government. Even if you can't overthrow it, that does not mean that you have to consent to it. That's what Consensual Political Intercourse was about. You either give the government your authority, by voting, or you don't give it your authority and you refuse to vote. It may not disappear immediately, but it can no longer claim that you gave it the authority to do whatever it wants. 

There's a difference between turnout and other aspects of elections. Votes, once cast, can be discarded or flipped to other candidates. But turnout cannot be faked. If people don't vote, a government can "claim" legitimacy, but it has nothing with which to back up that claim. Both the Apartheid and the Batista regime tried to continue to claim legitimacy, but since fewer than 10% of their people had voted, they had nothing with which to back up that claim.

It is possible to do more than one thing, but if your actions cancel each other out, you will accomplish nothing. If you want to oppose the government, don't vote, because voting demonstrates support for the government. Once you grant the government your mandate, you are no longer just fighting them, you are also fighting yourself because you have delegated to them your political power. If you're opposed to what they're doing, stop giving them your "power of attorney" to do it.  To claim that you want impeachment or war crimes trials, and then to vote for people who are opposed to impeachment and war crimes trials, tells me that you don't really want impeachment or war crimes trials, because you are delegating your political power to people who do not.

Sure you can SAY that you support avenues of legal accountability, Brett, but if you vote for war criminals, I'm not going to believe you. People who support avenues of legal accountability don't vote for war criminals and anyone who votes to fund an illegal war or commits to continuing an illegal war is a war criminal, which includes both Obama and McCain.

If you want to go to other countries or to the World Court and ask that American war criminals be prosecuted, their first defense is going to be that they did nothing illegal because they had your permission to do everything that they did. You voted for them. You gave them your mandate. You delegated to them your power. How can you turn around and ask that they be prosecuted for things that YOU voted to allow them to do?

That's why voting in rigged elections for people the Constitution does not grant you any legal means of holding accountable (other than waiting until their terms of office are up, the damage is done, and then trying to vote them out in the next rigged election) is not a good idea. Unless, of course, you support crimes against humanity and oppose accountability.

You can do two things or more at once if they are complementary. For example, you can research international law and at the same time you can support international investigative and legal proceedings, and educate people about international law. But if you want to support the rule of law and at the same time you vote for war criminals, your actions cancel each other out because you are voting for that which you claim to oppose.

The government of the United States of America is a rogue government engaged in illegal wars of aggression. The conference is correct in calling for justice, but it loses all credibility when it becomes apparent that nobody there is willing to refrain from voting to delegate their political power to that rogue government engaged in illegal wars of aggression. 

The elections are rigged and no candidate on the ballot with a chance of winning has called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal and both are committed to continuing them and have voted to fund them. You cannot call for international justice while voting to consent to an illegitimate government. 

Whether or not you can bring the government to justice, change the government, overthrow the government, or anything else, YOU have the power to refuse to support it. I am opposed to crimes against humanity and I will not vote to support them, vote for anyone who supports them, or vote in an election where there is no way to prevent my vote being stolen and flipped to a war criminal I didn't vote for. I don't vote for what I oppose. And those who vote in rigged elections, whether they vote for war criminals or just allow their votes to be flipped to war criminals, are nothing but hypocrites if they claim that they simultaneously oppose what they're voting for. 

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:47:10 AM

  (0+)