47,600+ have already signed the petition. Let's hope it helps strengthen the Democratic "leadership's" spine. http://bravenewfilms.org/pe ...more »
47,600+ have already signed the petition. Let's hope it helps strengthen the Democratic "leadership's" spine.
http://bravenewfilms.org/petitions/show/22-tell-the-house-judiciary-committee-to-hold-karl-rove-in-contempt-and-send-him-to-jail?page=2
« less full details »
Madam Speaker - With regard to your rationale for taking impeachment "off the table" - a commitment to important legislation on behalf ...more »
Madam Speaker -
With regard to your rationale for taking impeachment "off the table" - a commitment to important legislation on behalf of the American people - I have 3 questions:
1) Which of these [** below] have you "accomplished" SATISFACTORILY on behalf of the American people?
2) If, as you assert, filibuster [threats] by Republican Senators have stalled these - why then are you NOT now pursuing impeachment?
3) During your & Sen. Reid's majority tenure (nearly 16 months), how many hours of functional filibuster have Republicans actually engaged in?
##########
** End the Iraq war & hold administration accountable for its failures & war's horrendous costs?
** Reverse Bush's failed tax policy - skewed to benefit the wealthiest?
** Strengthen the economy; reverse burgeoning budget deficits & trade imbalance?
** Effectively address climate change?
** Institute a viable long-range energy policy?
** Provide health care for ~ 50 million uninsured Americans?
** Remedy 37 million American children living in poverty?
** Protect constitutional rights; reinstate justice and the rule of law
(FISA, habeas corpus, torture, corporate criminality, politicization of Justice Dep't, etc.)
** Restore balance of powers (Bush's assertions of near-monarchical powers, domestic spying,
signing statements, refusal of subpoenas, lying to Congress & the American people, conservative activism by Supreme Court, etc)
« less full details »
Madam Speaker - With regard to your rationale for taking impeachment "off the table" - a commitment to important legislation on behalf ...more »
Madam Speaker -
With regard to your rationale for taking impeachment "off the table" - a commitment to important legislation on behalf of the American people - I have 3 questions:
1) Which of these [** below] have you "accomplished" SATISFACTORILY on behalf of the American people?
2) If, as you assert, filibuster [threats] by Republican Senators have stalled these - why then are you NOT now pursuing impeachment?
3) During your & Sen. Reid's majority tenure (nearly 16 months), how many hours of functional filibuster have Republicans actually engaged in?
##########
** End the Iraq war & hold administration accountable for its failures & war's horrendous costs?
** Reverse Bush's failed tax policy - skewed to benefit the wealthiest?
** Strengthen the economy; reverse burgeoning budget deficits & trade imbalance?
** Effectively address climate change?
** Institute a viable long-range energy policy?
** Provide health care for ~ 50 million uninsured Americans?
** Remedy 37 million American children living in poverty?
** Protect constitutional rights; reinstate justice and the rule of law
(FISA, habeas corpus, torture, corporate criminality, politicization of Justice Dep't, etc.)
** Restore balance of powers (Bush's assertions of near-monarchical powers, domestic spying,
signing statements, refusal of subpoenas, lying to Congress & the American people, conservative activism by Supreme Court, etc)
« less full details »
Madam Speaker - With regard to your rationale for taking impeachment "off the table" - a commitment to important legislation on behalf ...more »
Madam Speaker -
With regard to your rationale for taking impeachment "off the table" - a commitment to important legislation on behalf of the American people - I have 3 questions:
1) Which of these [** below] have you "accomplished" SATISFACTORILY on behalf of the American people?
2) If, as you assert, filibuster [threats] by Republican Senators have stalled these - why then are you NOT now pursuing impeachment?
3) During your & Sen. Reid's majority tenure (nearly 16 months), how many hours of functional filibuster have Republicans actually engaged in?
##########
** End the Iraq war & hold administration accountable for its failures & war's horrendous costs?
** Reverse Bush's failed tax policy - skewed to benefit the wealthiest?
** Strengthen the economy; reverse burgeoning budget deficits & trade imbalance?
** Effectively address climate change?
** Institute a viable long-range energy policy?
** Provide health care for ~ 50 million uninsured Americans?
** Remedy 37 million American children living in poverty?
** Protect constitutional rights; reinstate justice and the rule of law
(FISA, habeas corpus, torture, corporate criminality, politicization of Justice Dep't, etc.)
** Restore balance of powers (Bush's assertions of near-monarchical powers, domestic spying,
signing statements, refusal of subpoenas, lying to Congress & the American people, conservative activism by Supreme Court, etc)
« less full details »
Madam Speaker, If you're still looking for Karl Rove, he's still proudly trashing Democrats and democratic values on Fox News. Just though ...more »
Madam Speaker,
If you're still looking for Karl Rove, he's still proudly trashing Democrats and democratic values on Fox News. Just thought you needed to know in case you were finally going to arrest him for contempt of Congress.
Any chance you could fit that into your otherwise busy schedule?
« less full details »
This country was founded to allow religious freedom for its citizens. Religion is an opinion ... a belief. It is not fact. What can we do ...more »
This country was founded to allow religious freedom for its citizens. Religion is an opinion ... a belief. It is not fact. What can we do to:
1. Keep religious leaders from dictating and interfering with politics?
2. Get the word 'God' out of government pledges and coins?
3. Prevent teaching of intelligent design in our schools and giving children thed wrong idea about evolution?
4. Provide a environment of religious freedom.
« less full details »
The members of the House(Congressmen and Women) are elected by their Districts. A large number of these spend an inordinate amount of time t ...more »
The members of the House(Congressmen and Women) are elected by their Districts. A large number of these spend an inordinate amount of time traveling the country and the world, Some act as if they are members of the Executive branch of government in their questions and statements;particularly to foreign Heads of States or their representatives. This undermines the Executive Branch and takes the representative away from their constituents as well as being in their seats for the important business of the House. You are the selected Leader of the current ruling Democrats in the House. Isn't there a way to insure that the men and women of this House either be present in their seats or be in their Districts that elected them talking with the people that put them there?
« less full details »
The question of impeachment is the most popular question listed so far, repeated in endless variations. At this writing it is the question w ...more »
The question of impeachment is the most popular question listed so far, repeated in endless variations. At this writing it is the question with the most votes.
However, most Democratic politicians dismiss this question in various ways. Before you do that, I'd like you to read http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Framed:_Impeaching_President_Bush_and_Vice_President_Cheney, which lists most of the objections to impeachment and why they are invalid. Please don't tell us an answer that has already been repudiated.
For example, any number of people have said that "It won't happen!" Or, variations thereof. It's nice that these people have an opinion, but an opinion doesn't qualify as fact. In fact, it WILL happen. There, I've said it so it must be true!
Right.
A lot of people think it's too late. It's too near the election and too close to the time for Bush to step down. Take a look at the frame and see if you don't agree that it will never be too late to impeach Bush/Cheney. I don't care if they are cold in their graves, it will not be too late. Because this is about future Presidents and administrations every bit as much as it's about the current one. We cannot afford for them to be unaccountable to the people.
The question behind this is simple: We want you to change your mind. Is there any possibility of that happening or are we wasting our time?
Because, if we are wasting our time, then you are really of no further use to us and we should go on. If your mind is closed and you won't consider what we want, then we need to replace you in November and find someone who will do what we want. Nothing personal, it's just that we can't let you stand in our way of holding admitted, arrogant criminals responsible for their crimes.
Are you willing to reopen this question and put impeachment back on the table, so that we can get to the bottom of what these people have done and hold them accountable for their actions?
« less full details »
This is not about politics or political calculation. It is about whether this Nation stands up and enforces the U.S. Constitution, The Bill ...more »
This is not about politics or political calculation. It is about whether this Nation stands up and enforces the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the most basic of Human Rights, or whether this Nation instead establishes completely criminal conduct, the tyranny of mass-murder, and the arrogance of dictatorship ('unitary executive') as legal American public policy. Over one million totally innocent people in Iraq, many of them little children and women, have been murdered without provocation. Richard Bruce Cheney and George Walker Bush have also used our own sons and daughters recklessly as cannon fodder in a dishonest war based on propaganda and a marketing campaign of entirely phony scare tactics ('mushroom clouds', 'unmanned drones' from the militarily crippled Nation of Iraq). Over 30,000 more Americans have been crippled and left deformed for life. And this has cost American citizens hundreds of billions of dollars, that we do not have, and destroyed the reputation of this once honorable Country and replaced it as the home now of human torture, secret rendititions, the mass-violence of aggressive War, the use of illegal weapons such as White Phospersous, and civilian-killing Cluster Bombs, and other treachery. In addition, our civil liberties have been systematically dismantled, and, due to the abuse of 'signing statements', even the laws of Congress itself have been made irrelevant.
The U.S. Constitution says that Congress SHALL Impeach, (not "may if it is convenient"), the executive when such crimes against our Constitution and mankind have been committed.
If Congress refuses to use the Impeachment clause in the presence of these horrific crimes against our Nation, our Constitution, and against mankind now, then when would Impeachment ever apply? Congress, by doing nothing now, will have set the bar for Impeachment so high as to be essentially stripped completely from the American experience altogether. Therefore, free license by the executive branch to commit horrific crimes at will is only inevitable, and the co-equal separation of powers will be destroyed. A message will have been sent to all future Presidents and Vice-Presidents, that this is all acceptable, legal, permissible conduct. Our Nation will soon devolve into a de-facto Monarchy, whereby the U.S. Constitution itself is null and void, and the basic Human Rights of man are only at best selectively applied. How can you simply stand there and do nothing, while this happens to our beloved Nation? Is this what you wish to be remembered for?
Furthermore, by taking no action and refusing to enforce the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is itself violating the principles of the U.S. Constitution, and is itself acting as a direct accomplice and a willing accessory to the 35 Articles (Crimes) committed by these plainly corrupt officials, Cheney and Bush.
History also shows that when investigations were first held against Richard Nixon, Impeachement was initially unpopular, but it became clearly supported by the majority of law-abiding Americans once the criminal evidence was discovered, and Nixon was forced to be held accountable. Government accountability is always supported by the public throughout history, and the more serious the crimes the MORE it is overwhelmingly supported. History shows that the Democratic Party then won the 1974 midterm elections in a landslide, and then the Presidency in 1976. Cheney and Bush today are already the most unpopular figures to hold their respective offices in modern U.S. History -- even without prosecution, and holding them accountable to the law will only disgrace and embarrass them further.
But as stated previously, this is not about politics. It is about whether all future Presidents and all furture Adminstrations have now: the legal right to start the mass-violence of aggressive War for specious reasons, the legal right to torture human beings, the legal right to wiretap American citizens, the right to ignore at will the very Laws of Congress, and the legal right to destroy and disregard the U.S. Consitution itself at their pleasure -- all with no possible recourse. This is what non-action assures. It assures that this history will be repeated (McCain, Jeb Bush, etc.) again, and that the conduct of Dick Cheney and Bush will be now legitimized as "non-criminal", acceptable conduct - no longer subject to recourse.
History will regard yourselves and this Congress as cowardly, treasonous accessories to these awful crimes, and as the willful enablers of these Bush-Cheney crimes. For such crimes and horrible abuses can never just happen in a vacuum. Evil only can only triumph when good men decide to do nothing. This will be your own legacy and history. You may as well print on your tombstone, "I let this happen".
The blood of millions of innocent lives is on your own hands. Hanging in the balance, is new aggressive acts of mass violence (War) against Iran -- this time possibly involving Nuclear Weapons, and based once again on more trumped-up fear and falsehoods. Yet you have a chance to re-establish and make clear just what is legal conduct, and what is not (Cheney, Bush) by putting the U.S. Constitution first, and common good of our Country first.
It is, in fact, your own sworn oath to do precisely this.
It is time to start defending the U.S. Constitution, and STOP protecting and defending the disreputable Richard Bruce Cheney and George Walker Bush.
Either you are with us, or you are with "them" (the criminals: Cheney and Bush), and against everything that this Nation is supposed to stand for.
« less full details »
Even if impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and others is still off the table, is censure off the table also?
Madam Speaker, Without regard to the extra money spend on war operations authorized in war supplementals, the U.S. military budget is appro ...more »
Madam Speaker,
Without regard to the extra money spend on war operations authorized in war supplementals, the U.S. military budget is approximately that of the next fourteen (14) largest military budgets in the world. Would you support a 5X limit, which would limit military spending (other than war appropriations) to the combined estimated next five largest budgets? If we are fighting the next five largest countries in the world, then probably we are on the wrong side.
In addition, would you support mothballing one half of the defense R&D, currently estimate at $70 billion per year, and move those funds to war operations in order to reduce borrowing for the war? It seems like we could cut out programs, such as nukes in space, until the war ends. While R&D is important for the economy as well as the military, in times when money is short it makes sense to spend it prudently.
« less full details »
Madam Speaker, As a result of foreign borrowing for the War in Iraq and poor economic policies that have undermined the fundamentals of the ...more »
Madam Speaker,
As a result of foreign borrowing for the War in Iraq and poor economic policies that have undermined the fundamentals of the economy, the dollar has dropped about 50% against other currencies in the past couple of years. The true inflation rate is the official domestic inflation rate plus the drop in the dollar.
Will you personally offer legislation that implements a war tax to cover any additional war supplementals so that they are revenue neutral? Such a war tax should tax those with incomes over $1 million per year and those with property in excess of $10 million net worth. By taxing the people who most gain from the war, you can shorten it. Ending the excessive war borrowing would strengthen the dollar, and a strong economy is our best defense in a world of global trade.
« less full details »
Should the Congress arrest Failure To Appear violators to enforce its self-provided subpoena power? If not, why isn't Congress's subpoena p ...more »
Should the Congress arrest Failure To Appear violators to enforce its self-provided subpoena power?
If not, why isn't Congress's subpoena power a farce?
« less full details »
One of the main reasons you gave for electing Democrats in 2006 was oversight and subpoena power. Since you have taken impeachment off the ...more »
One of the main reasons you gave for electing Democrats in 2006 was oversight and subpoena power. Since you have taken impeachment off the table and since the attorney general will not follow up of contempt of congress resolutions, how can congress exercise its oversight duties and what real difference has subpoena power made in uncovering the misdeeds of, for instance, Karl Rove?
« less full details »
Madam Speaker, You and others, including Senator Feinstein, have repeatedly referenced the exclusivity provision of the proposed FISA bill ...more »
Madam Speaker,
You and others, including Senator Feinstein, have repeatedly referenced the exclusivity provision of the proposed FISA bill as a protection against lawbreaking by this administration.
Given the fact that the original 1978 bill already had a similar exclusivity provision, and that this administration has already claimed the authority to violate any law it chooses, two questions arise:
1) Why do you expect this exclusivity provision to offer any more protection than the original one did; and
2) what will Congress do over the next six months to restore its relevance in the "checks and balances" system of American governance?
« less full details »
The single most important task of Congress is to protect and defend the Constitution. A strong Constitution protects the Nation, and thus We ...more »
The single most important task of Congress is to protect and defend the Constitution. A strong Constitution protects the Nation, and thus We The People and as such, is paramount for our national security. Congress is the voice, the will, the protector, and the conscious of We The People. Given the Congress' acquiescence to all measure of executive overreaching for the past 7-1/2 years, what will the Congress finally do to restore the balance of power by reigning in a near-unitary executive, by holding them to account for any crimes committed against the Constitution and against We The People, and by using punitive measures to prevent such crimes from ever happening again? Given the past 7-1/2 years, what assurances can you give us that crimes against the Constitution and the American people will not be swept under the rug to be repeated by a future administration, dangerously emboldened by history's precedent of getting away with it?
« less full details »
In essense, you recently indicated that you made decisions based on your caucuses line of thinking and the voters would like to know why you ...more »
In essense, you recently indicated that you made decisions based on your caucuses line of thinking and the voters would like to know why you are not voting and acting based on the will of the people who put you in office instead?
« less full details »
I'm curious how any Democrat, much less any member of Congress, considered their oath of office to uphold the Constitution before they voted ...more »
I'm curious how any Democrat, much less any member of Congress, considered their oath of office to uphold the Constitution before they voted to allow for telecom immunity in the service of warrantless, secret, illegal and unconstitutional searches of our phone calls.
As the Bill passed under your stewardship, clearly not many did. What a disservice to the citizens of your district and to the country overall.
« less full details »
