Impeach Clarence Thomas

It's time for you to go, Clarence. You've now proven that you're not worthy to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Justice Thomas (there's a classic oxymoron) has referred Donofrio v. Webb to the full Court for its weekly conference session today, after Justice Souter had rejected it. Donofrio is the completely ridiculous New Jersey case that attempts to show that Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as contemplated by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

Leo Donofrio, the plaintiff in the original lawsuit, has conceded that Obama was born in Hawaii. Case closed. His place of birth automatically confers U.S. citizenship, and because there is no justiciable issue in the case (the birthplace having been stipulated to), the only motivation for Thomas' decision to refer can be political. Therefore, he ought to be impeached.

The plaintiff tries to argue that there are two prerequisites for one to be a "natural-born citizen," birth in the United States and the U.S. citizenship of one's father:

"Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues," Mr. Donofrio said in a statement on the Citizen Wells Web site. "They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be president.

"Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth,' just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."

Balderdash. The only authority Donofrio can cite in support of his highly specious claim is some 18th Century pamphlets and treatises allegedly relied upon by the framers of the Constitution in establishing the "natural-born" threshold. Set aside for the moment the fact that, in the 21st Century, the notion that citizenship is patrilineal (much as religion traditionally was matrilineal) is so anachronistic and outdated as to be laughable. The bottom line is that there is not one shred of American legal precedent suggesting that "natural-born," since the ratification of the Constitution, means anything other than "born on U.S. soil." And since the plaintiff has stipulated that Obama was born on U.S. soil (Honolulu, Hawaii, 1961), the entire basis for the lawsuit is moot.

The very idea of Justice Thomas, presumably one of the nine most accomplished and learned jurists in America, referring this absurd lawsuit to the Court for conference is irresponsible and a clear dereliction of his responsibilities and duties as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. As such, it undoubtedly and certainly constitutes grounds for impeachment.

UPDATE (9:57 am 12/5/08): Forgot to add that of course SCOTUS won't grant cert and hear the case. I realize that, and I'm not at all concerned about the risk that the case will reach oral arguments. My point merely is that, lacking a justiciable issue, the case never should have gotten this far, and Justice Thomas' complicity in allowing it to get to this point is impeachable because he knew or should have known that it was nonjusticiable.

Why I didn't go to Netroots Nation

It's no secret that I've not been much of a fan of Daily Kos ever since the front-pagers there took on their holier-than-thou attitude about progressivism, essentially becoming almost DLC-ish in their refusal to confront misbehaving (i.e., insufficiently progressive) Democrats. Long-time Blast Off! readers -- both of you -- might recall my little flame war (okay, I diaried, they flamed) back in '06 when I dared to criticize then-Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for taking impeachment off the table. Oddly, the Kossacks changed their tune a year later ... but I digress.

It seems the latest flap amongst the ideological purists who dominate the so-called "Orange Satan" is over -- horrors! -- the Code Pink protesters who attempted to remind Speaker Pelosi of her oath to uphold the Constitution. According to eyewitnesses, they were chanting things like "Impeachment!" when Pelosi spoke, but they were hustled out of the room before the next speaker, Al Gore, came to the podium.

Naturally, our orange pals were incensed that reality interfered with their lovefest:

If Code Pink's goal is to prevent people from wanting to join Code Pink, they're succeeding -- [Bill in Portland Maine]

I don't necessarily mean to pick on Bill personally -- he was plenty nice to me online when I appeared on a certain TV game show a couple of years ago -- but his attitude, evidently shared by the vast majority of commenters at dKos, demonstrates the biggest problem I think we as progressives face today: an almost pandemic unwillingness to "make waves" -- a fear of controversy and confrontation, whether it's against Republicans themselves or against those on our own side who incessantly enable and kowtow to Republicans. I left a comment over there, of course, but I figured I'd expand on it a bit ...

Why is it so objectionable when a progressive group attempts to make a statement to one of those enablers (in this case, Speaker Pelosi) about her utter ineffectiveness? We progressives like to wave the Constitution around and say that we, unlike people on the Right, adhere to the values and ideals contained therein, yet there are some among us (I'm looking at you, Netroots Nation) who would restrict a group's freedom of expression for the sake of politeness?

I for one am tired of treating our piss-poor congressional leadership with kid gloves, like their shit doesn't stink. The fact is, Code Pink and those like them are right -- impeachment not only should be on the table, the hearings should have been underway for weeks or months by now. The Speaker has utterly failed to justify the faith that I, and so many of my progressive friends, placed in her upon her ascension to that lofty position. And now her apologists at Daily Kos still say that we have to be nice?

That's why I didn't go to Netroots Nation. I've no desire to be told that I need to sit still and be quiet and not advocate that our Democratic leaders wake up and smell the coffee. I knew it would be like that from the moment I heard about the conference. So I chose to stay home rather than put up with the Politeness Patrol.

Look where "playing nice" has gotten us already, folks. You can have your Netroots Nation -- I'd rather chant with the sinners than fluff with the saints.

(cross-posted at Pax Americana ... and at Daily Kos, just to see if anyone's paying attention)

Impeachment is on the table

Finally, someone had the decency and sense to step forward, despite Speaker Pelosi's protestations that impeachment was "off the table," and do what needs to be done ... what's needed to be done for a long time. And not surprisingly, that someone was Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Yesterday, Rep. Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives (first page of PDF begins here; links to each article also PDFs):

Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United
States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W.
Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power.

ARTICLE I.—CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ

ARTICLE II.—FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION.

ARTICLE III.—MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, SO AS TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR

ARTICLE IV.—MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES

ARTICLE V.—ILLEGALLY MISSPENDING FUNDS TO SECRETLY BEGIN A WAR OF AGGRESSION

ARTICLE VI.—INVADING IRAQ IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.J. RES. 114.

ARTICLE VII.—INVADING IRAQ ABSENT A DECLARATION OF WAR

ARTICLE VIII.—INVADING IRAQ, A SOVEREIGN NATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE UN CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

ARTICLE IX.—FAILING TO PROVIDE TROOPS WITH BODY ARMOR AND VEHICLE ARMOR

ARTICLE X.—FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

ARTICLE XI.—ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ

ARTICLE XII.—INITIATING A WAR AGAINST IRAQ FOR CONTROL OF THAT NATION’S NATURAL RESOURCES

ARTICLE XIII.—CREATING A SECRET TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP ENERGY AND MILITARY POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ AND OTHER COUNTRIES

ARTICLE XIV.—MISPRISION OF A FELONY, MISUSE AND EXPOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF VALERIE PLAME WILSON, CLANDESTINE AGENT OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

ARTICLE XV.—PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ

ARTICLE XVI.—RECKLESS MISSPENDING AND WASTE OF US TAX DOLLARS IN CONNECTION WITH IRAQ CONTRACTORS

ARTICLE XVII.—ILLEGAL DETENTION: DETAINING INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT CHARGE PERSONS BOTH U.S. CITIZENS AND FOREIGN CAPTIVES

ARTICLE XVIII.—TORTURE: SECRETLY AUTHORIZING, AND ENCOURAGING THE USE OF TORTURE AGAINST CAPTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND OTHER PLACES, AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY

ARTICLE XIX.—RENDITION: KIDNAPPING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL TO "BLACK SITES" LOCATED IN OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING NATIONS KNOWN TO PRACTICE TORTURE

ARTICLE XX.—IMPRISONING CHILDREN

ARTICLE XXI.—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THREATS FROM IRAN, AND SUPPORTING TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN IRAN, WITH THE GOAL OF OVERTHROWING THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT

ARTICLE XXII.—CREATING SECRET LAWS

ARTICLE XXIII.—VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT

ARTICLE XXIV.—SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

ARTICLE XXV.—DIRECTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO CREATE AN ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DATABASE OF THE PRIVATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND EMAILS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

ARTICLE XXVI.—ANNOUNCING THE INTENT TO VIOLATE LAWS WITH SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND VIOLATING THOSE LAWS

ARTICLE XXVII.—FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND INSTRUCTING FORMER EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY

ARTICLE XXVIII.—TAMPERING WITH FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, CORRUPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

ARTICLE XXIX.—CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

ARTICLE XXX.—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY MEDICARE

ARTICLE XXXI.—KATRINA: FAILURE TO PLAN FOR THE PREDICTED DISASTER OF HURRICANE KATRINA, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CIVIL EMERGENCY

ARTICLE XXXII.—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

ARTICLE XXXIII.—REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO 9[/]11

ARTICLE XXXIV.—OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

ARTICLE XXXV.—ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS

The full text enumerating each article stretches some twenty pages in the Congressional Record. This is a full and complete indictment of the illegal acts of the Bush crime syndicate since January 2001, and it's on the front page of every major newspaper in America. Right?

Well, not so much ... in fact, it only appears to have reached sixteen news sources in the entire world. Sixteen. On any page. As a wise person once said, "What the fuck?!"

Thank you, Rep. Kucinich, for finally putting words to the misdeeds of the last seven and a half years. Just reading the article headers is sobering enough, but when you read the full articles, you can hardly believe your eyes ... you can't believe that it could happen in America.

But it did. And it will continue if Huggy Bear becomes president. And it's well past time to punish the real evildoers: the Bush crime syndicate.

Dear Steny Hoyer: Fuck you. Sincerely, me

I was pretty critical of Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the House Majority Leader, here last month after it was announced that he would keynote the Florida Democratic Party convention. Then, just before the convention, Hoyer made a speech that actually sounded like he was willing to do more than just put a "D" after his name, when he called out the Bush crime syndicate for their egregious, repeated flouting of the Constitution. Hell, Steny even quoted Federalist 47!

However, just as I feared when I said:

But I'm not ready to jump on the Steny bandwagon just yet. Why, in just the last few weeks we've heard loads of similar rhetoric from Harry Reid, Pete Stark, and others, only to be left wanting like Jenna Bush when the keg runs dry.

So, good on ya, Steny, for speaking truth to power. Now will your actions back up your words? I'll be watching ...

... Hoyer is letting his true colors (read: sniveling coward and Republican enabler) shine through.

U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday he will block an effort to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has announced he will try to force a vote on Cheney's impeachment.

Hoyer said he will use parliamentary tactics to table that effort.

"Impeachment is not on the agenda," Hoyer said.

Hoyer said his decision was not based upon the merits of the impeachment effort, but rather because the new Democratic majority had more important issues to resolve.

Goddammit, Hoyer! What could possibly be more important than pursuing charges against the arch-dictator of the Bush crime syndicate? How can you call yourself a Democrat, in an era when the Bush crime syndicate has run roughshod over everything Democrats -- and Americans -- presumably hold dear, and not even give Rep. Kucinich's proposal a chance to be debated? Jeebus, Hoyer, you suck.

The "new Democratic majority" has failed time and time again to solve their purportedly "more important issues," largely because the leadership of Hoyer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been almost criminally ineffective. And there are no indications to suggest that things will be changing anytime soon.

Impeachment clearly is warranted, both for Cheney and for Drunky McStagger, the nominal leader, himself. It's one thing to oppose impeachment, but for a Democratic leader to refuse even to countenance the idea of impeachment and allow it a full and fair opportunity to be debated is malfeasance of the highest order. It's unconscionable and astonishing, and it demands a response.

Contact Rep. Hoyer's office:

Phone (202) 225-3130 (House Majority Leader office) or (202) 225-4131 (Md.-5th Dist. office).
Email is only available for constituents, with a zip code check; use 20770 or 20602 if you wish.

UPDATE (3:43 pm 11/6/07): I just called the House Majority Leader's office at the number listed above, and I told the gentleman who answered that I was disgusted with Rep. Hoyer's motion to table, and that I have pledged $1,000 to any progressive candidate who challenges Rep. Hoyer in next year's primary. I also asked him to pass that word on to Rep. Hoyer.

Now, you call. Either number above should be just dandy.

Running scared

The Bush crime syndicate is scared.

Scared of dissent. Scared of protests. Scared of free speech. And scared of September 15.

I received an e-mail this morning (not on the web, apparently, so no link available as yet) from the folks at ImpeachBush.org, who are co-organizers of the September 15 March on Washington. The e-mail describes the shocking and wholly unwarranted response of the Bush crime syndicate, represented by the National Park Police, to a small and peaceful press conference yesterday to publicize the September 15 activities:

While the momentum for the Sept. 15 Peace/Impeachment demonstration grows, the Bush Administration is going to extraordinary lengths to suppress the mobilizing for this mass demonstration.

Less than 18 hours ago, National Park Service Police turned a September 15 Press Conference, held in front of the White House, into a chaotic scene. On the pretext that there was no permit for a three foot long folding table that the media placed their microphones on, the police intervened in the middle of the press conference to announce that it was an unpermitted activity. Three people were arrested and are still being held in jail. They include Adam Kokesh, an Iraq war veteran; Tina Richards of Grassroots America; and Ian Thompson an ANSWER Coalition organizer.

The Parks Police even rode a horse directly into the crowd of reporters and shocked onlookers. The National Parks Police is an agency in the Interior Department whose Secretary is a member of George W. Bush's cabinet. In recent weeks September 15 organizers have been fined more than $30,000 for putting up posters promoting the September 15 March on Washington.

We encourage ImpeachBush.org members to circulate this email and the important story from the AFP wire story that documents this outrageous assault against Free Speech rights by the Bush Administration. At the end of this email we are also enclosing a link to a video on YouTube that shows some part of the suppression of the September 15 press conference yesterday.

Bush and company want to prevent people from coming out for a mass action led by Iraq war veterans and their families that will expose his war propaganda as a lie. The Administration wants to suppress the growing movement for impeachment. This is a showdown of great magnitude.

Please make every effort to come to Washington DC on September 15. We will not be intimidated. Join the tens of thousands who are coming to Washington, DC on September 15. Buses, car caravans and vans are coming from more than 100 cities.

If you cannot personally come you can help by making a generous donation. The buses, literature, posters, stage, sound and other expenses are immense. Many have already contributed. Please do your part and make a contribution today by clicking this link.

If you have made a donation today please consider doing so again today by clicking this link.

Here is the outrageous and astonishing eight-minute-long video referenced in the e-mail:


Finally, the e-mail linked to an Agence France-Presse report of the arrests.

Do we live in America anymore? This is not an America that I recognize ... and it just makes me more motivated and more determined to make my own voice heard when I go to D.C. next weekend. I hope you'll join me.

Pelosi's priorities

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains firmly opposed to impeachment. Here's why:

"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."

Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton.

In the first question of the morning, Pelosi was asked if she supported a proposal by Washington Rep. Jay Inslee to impeach beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The Speaker looked down and rubbed her temples wearily. "I would like us to stay focused on our agenda this week," she said. Today the entails finalizing ethics and lobbying reform. Tomorrow it will mean expanding children's health care and boosting Medicare benefits. By the end of the week the House will likely pass an energy bill and legislation will be brought to the floor that reins in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Now, it's not like Nancy doesn't see what the rest of us see; she knows that the Bush crime syndicate is full of scofflaws and sycophants. But, like the concern trolls who infest the blogosphere, she doesn't seem to care all that much:

She is greatly disturbed by the lawlessness of this Administration and its contempt for checks and balances. "I take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, so it is a top priority for me and my colleagues to uphold that." She notes the vigorous oversight hearings held by committee chairman like John Conyers and Henry Waxman.

But Pelosi sees impeaching Gonzales and his superiors as a distraction from the ambitious agenda she has crafted for the House. "If I can just hold my caucus together," she says, "I can take them to this progressive place."

Nancy, I've always liked you, but you're being completely inconsistent. I appreciate your priorities, but isn't "defend[ing] and protect[ing] the Constitution" not just "a top priority," but the top priority?

See, letting the Bush crime syndicate continue to deface and defile the Constitution is, by definition, a violation of your oath to defend and protect the Constitution. And that's true of every member of Congress. Be "greatly disturbed" all you want, but I don't see how that protects the Constitution.

You say, well, you don't have the votes. I call bullshit. An impeachment trial, be it for Gonzales or "Dick" or even Drunky McStagger himself, would bring to light all of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by this "administration." Even people on the GOP side of the aisle are suggesting that impeachment is beginning to make sense, at least for Gonzales.

I have news for you, Nancy: the country already is divided -- 70/30 in favor of impeachment, last I looked. Your priority ought to be making sure the division -- you might even call it a cleavage -- doesn't get any worse ... and the best way to do that is to remove the dividers from office. Uphold your oath, Madame Speaker. Impeach the criminals, and let's begin to restore dignity to America.

(h/t watertiger)

How Kossacks view impeachment -- then and now

I don't mean to whine about being flamed -- certainly, I can take it, and I did, plenty of it -- but I can't help but laugh a little at the way things have changed around here in just a few short months ... basically not much more than a Friedman Unit.

I'm simply amazed at how Kossacks are responding to the idea of taking impeachment off the table when it's Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) doing the taking ... but last fall, when I said Speaker Pelosi was ignoring a mandate by doing the same thing, I was roundly castigated at dKos ...

Back in November, shortly after the election, I posted a diary wherein I dared to criticize Speaker Pelosi and others in the Democratic congressional leadership for taking impeachment "off the table." I felt then, as I do now, that there was no tactical or strategic benefit to disavowing impeachment right away, indeed, I felt that the Bush crime syndicate would be even more likely to ignore anything Congress might do unless impeachment were a real threat. As the comments demonstrate, Kossacks were none too pleased by my position, and I heard it pretty much from all comers, both here and elsewhere.

Today, though, Sen. Feingold posted a diary saying essentially what my commenters said in November -- no, let's wait, impeachment isn't going to do any good, what's the point, yadda yadda -- but the attitude has shifted completely. Kossacks everywhere are falling all over themselves to urge impeachment and to point out the flaws in Sen. Feingold's opinion (and I agree that said opinion is mighty flawed, too).

So, what's different about today's diary as compared with mine back in November? Could it be that those of us who have been advocating for impeachment since the moment Democrats took on the majority might have been right after all?

Maybe it's the source? Some lousy Z-list blogger versus a member of the United States Senate? Possibly, but I don't think that's it. The opinions have validity regardless of who is voicing them.

What about the timing? Have things changed so much since November that what seemed totally unpalatable back then today is not only hoped for, but demanded? You know, maybe that's true for the Kossacks who stomped all over my diary last fall ... maybe they just changed their minds. But if that's the case, they're not very smart, because the impeachable offenses have been patently clear since well before November ... indeed, they've been obvious since around 2003. And I don't think Kossacks are that stupid ... on the contrary, these are among the most brilliant folks with whom I've ever had the pleasure to associate. So, it's not that things have changed drastically since November ...

So what is it? Why was the idea of impeachment so noxious in November and so de riguere now? I mean, normally I'm not the type to say "I told you so," but ... well, make of it what you will. I'm just glad to be on the same side of the debate as most everyone else here, this time.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Facts still have a liberal bias

Here are some numbers you won't hear on Faux News (poll conducted July 3-5):

Question:
Do you approve or disapprove of President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case?

Approve 31%
Disapprove 64%
Undecided 5%


Question:
Do you favor or oppose a complete presidential pardon for Mr. Libby?

Favor 11%
Oppose 84%
Undecided 5%


Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

Favor 45%
Oppose 46%
Undecided 9%


Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

Favor 54%
Oppose 40%
Undecided 6%

Even taking into account that the poll, by ARG, is slightly skewed towards Democrats (38% of the sample, versus 29% Republicans and 33% independents), the country generally backs impeachment (or, in the case of Bush, at least wouldn't oppose it), and the torches and pitchforks might come out if Libby is pardoned fully.

With this kind of evidence, I have to ask: why doesn't Congress get it?!?!

UPDATE (3:45 pm 7/6/07): Ana Marie Cox delves farther into this (no pun intended), comparing the numbers with 1998. Let's just say impeachment wasn't quite as popular before it actually happened to Clinton.

Censure's too good for him

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) will be introducing legislation to censure Drunky McStagger when Congress returns from recess next Tuesday.

A censure is a rare public reprimand but does not carry any other penalty.

House leaders could take the resolution directly to the floor, but that's unlikely. More likely is that the resolution will be sent to the House Judiciary Committee, of which Wexler is a member. Since this would be a "sense of the House" resolution, it would not require Senate approval.

Wexler said Bush's "intervention is an unconscionable abuse of authority by George W. Bush, and Congress must step forward and express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision.

[...]

The last president who was censured was James Buchanan in 1860.

Why just censure, Rep. Wexler? Why not impeachment? Drunky surely deserves it, and the evidence for high crimes and misdemeanors certainly exists. Sure, Drunky could be the first president censured in almost 150 years, but he'd still be in office.

While you're at it, you can join Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) as sponsor of HR 333 (PDF), to impeach Dick "Dick" Cheney.

But censure? Censure's just another word for "slap on the wrist." And we're watching you and your Democratic colleagues in Congress very closely now.

Do your job. Impeach. Now.

(h/t to Eschaton commenter portia)

Lock the doors and hide the children: Drunky McStagger comes to town tomorrow

Yes, it's almost here. The day we've all been dreading.

Tomorrow is the day when Drunky McStagger (a/k/a the Other Bush -- at least in Miami) himself weaves his way to America's Glans™ to speak (or attempt to speak) at Miami Dade College's Kendall Campus commencement ceremony.

You may recall I announced this a month ago, and provided maps and directions ... you know, not for a protest, but as a public service. You also may recall that City Link was kind enough to pick this up.

I had hoped to attend, but life has intervened. A month ago, I would have predicted that I'd have my son with me from tonight through the weekend, which would make going to Kendall tomorrow evening (the ceremony begins at 5 p.m.) no problem at all. However, he has a baseball game tomorrow at 3:30, two hours from here (and over three from Kendall), and he specifically asked me to let him play the game. What, I'm going to say no to my son?!? I'm sorry, but that's not how I roll.

It's all about priorities. And so I humbly beseech my fellow sensible, rational south Floridians to do what you need to do, in my stead. After all, I'm not fomenting a riot ... I'm just providing public information.

And now I guess I'll just sit back and wait for the knock on the door ...

UPDATE (2:52 pm 4/27/07): This is becoming quite the event. There's coverage of it as part of the A28 Nationwide Impeachment Protests, and locally it's being organized as The Unwelcoming Party.

How I wish wish wish I could participate ... but I just can't.

News and views from afar

Well, Internet access where I am is spotty and apparently limited to the front desk area. Preferring to be social (there's a shocker, huh?), I'm not hanging out on the laptop ... although I might not be able to resist all weekend.

But I'm watching Headline News (the English language choices are few), and I had to comment on two factoids I read in their crawl.

First, kudos to the Vermont Senate, which passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Drunky McStagger and his boss, Dick "Dick" Cheney. How loud will the calls for impeachment have to be before the House of Representatives finally acts?

Second, did Dana Perino really say that Alberto "VO5" Gonzales is doing a "fantastic job?" That's unconscionable, and Dana has lost all credibility if that's true. She's nothing but a hack for the Bush crime syndicate, and if the media had any scruples at all (yes, I know they don't), they'd either boycott the White House pressers or pepper young Ms. Perino with a withering barrage of questions about why she persists in defending these criminals. They're the real evildoers, after all ...

More to come ...

Impeach the man in charge

You understand, of course, that when I say "man in charge," I am not referring to the Dry Drunk-in-Chief, right?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign. He has even taken aim at the leading Democratic presidential candidates in the field for their votes on authorizing the war.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice president and "all civil Officers of the United States" for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Sources tell the Sleuth that in light of the mass killings at Virginia Tech Monday, Kucinich's impeachment plans have been put on hold. There will be no action this week, they say.

There's plenty of evidence of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to support a Cheney impeachment, so the only reason not to do so would be political at this point. Honestly, I think we're to the point where the country can't afford not to impeach.

It's time. Let's get the bastards out.

(h/t to Holden at First Draft)

Overstepping boundaries

Here's a shocker: the federal government has been identifying all manner of cases as terrorism-related since 2001, but many of those had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.

Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found.

Two of 26, folks. That's 7.7%. That's like batting .077 -- depending on your perspective, either a "prolonged slump" or "go back to Double-A ball because you suck out loud."

It's really quite consistent with this maladministration's totalitarian attitude, the old "my way or the highway" mentality. You get arrested on terror charges (trumped up though they may be) and you have no constitutional rights -- rot in Gitmo without counsel for all anyone cares. If martial law has to be declared, and the military has to take over civilian law enforcement, so be it. And if they can't scare you by throwing strawman terrorist arguments into every issue, well, they'll just make shit up. Oh, sorry, I mean "diminish or inflate" the statistics.

The more out-and-out corruption that comes to light, the more incredulous I am that we haven't had a serious examination in this country, whether from the media or Congress, of the propriety -- or necessity -- of impeachment. Drunky McStagger and his minions already have far exceeded what Richard Nixon's administration did to justify impeachment ... and the impeachment of Bill Clinton for allegedly lying about a blow job? Utterly no comparison.

It's time (past time, really) to start the dialogue about impeachment. Something has to stop these assholes from destroying the Constitution ... if they haven't already.

A call for impeachment

I hear the drumbeat getting louder.

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

These signing statements are in direct contradiction of the oath of office the person who would be president is required to take. The constitution states that the president shall carry out the laws, i.e. "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." This is the oath.

Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

By violating that Constitution[al oath], I consider that the Cretin in Chief has waived the right to a title that is given in return for his service in office.

I truly believe it's only a matter of time.