The Voters See
The citizens know they have options. This outlines a framework to analyze whether the President and/or Congress are fit to hold office.
Monitoring: Bonafide Congressional oversight or delays? [ Click ]
Overview
Here are other thoughts on the issues and questions facing the country: Criteria to evaluate, inter alia :
- 1. Whether a president is or is not fit for office, or should be removed; and
- 2. Whether Congress is or is not timely asserting the rule of law/their oaths to compel this President to assent to the rule of law.
We discuss how state proclamation would force the country to wrestle with these criteria/issues; and give the voters nine [9] months to evaluate who is for or against the Constitution. Bluntly, the problem is the mechanism to remove the President is also in rebellion against the Constitution.
The State proclamations calling for impeachment would force the government to show its hand, and give the voters plenty of time to watch more of the NSA-hearing-like non-sense of excuses and baloney – then make a decision to find new leaders who assert their oaths, not their excuses.
Forecast: RNC Dilemma
Either the President will lawfully be removed from office, or the voters will find new Congressional leadership. The State Proclamation process will force the Congress to publicly commit: Are they for the Constitution and will remove this President; or are they in rebellion and should be removed at the ballot box?
[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]
In the wake of the Gonzalez hearings, it’s clear the RNC, White House and Congress have a problem: The President has engaged in unlawful conduct; and Congress has assented to that unlawful conduct.
It’s time for a wakeup call. Bluntly, the 2006 Election – as is any other election – is a mandate and a referendum. This 2006 election is not out of the ordinary. What is unusual is the speed at which the debate is accelerating, and clearly identifying both the problem and the solution: Congress and the President have assented to this lawlessness; and the Congress must lawfully remove this President from power. If Congress does not act to impeach by 1 March 2006, the States will accelerate the discussions to mandate an impeachment vote. This approach was successfully tested in 1903 with a Florida Referendum against a Federal Judge. The Florida State proclamation forced the House to vote – without sending it to committee – on an investigation; and the Committee, although it did not agree on the results issued a report. The House subsequently voted to impeach the Federal Judge.
Here is an excellent summary of the state proclamation approach forcing a House vote on impeachment: [ Click ]
This precedent is important when considering the current nexus: Local citizens know they can force the House to act. This will do one thing: Regardless whether the House chooses to impeach or not – or whether they remove the President or not -- the Public will have at east eight [8] months to evaluate the Congress’ response. At this juncture it is clear the President has violated the FISA law; and the long string of abuses warrants removal from office. This note does one thing: Outlines the current problem, and shows one path forward.
Overall, the issue isn’t simply whether or not the President should or should not be removed, but whether Congress is with or against his Rebellion. This Congress has chosen to assent to this President’s rebellion. The way forward is to mandate the Congress to vote up or down – on an impeachment proclamation – and then the citizens will have the information to make needed changes during the 2006 election.
There is hope the Congress will remove the President if he does not resign. First, if you listen carefully to the discussion on the Senate Judiciary Committee, you’ll note an obvious change in tone. No longer is there a partisan battle. Rather, there is overwhelming support across both parties within the Judiciary that the President has violated the law.
The way forward is to discuss the contradictions upon which the President can be removed from office.
At the same time, we need to consider the likely detractors that will say this is not prudent. Arguably, their defense of the President is a defense of the Congress’s assent to this rebellion against the Constitution.
The Senate requires 2/3 to remove the President. Today, assuming 50 Senators in the DNC vote, this means that at least 17 RNC Senators must break ranks. The momentum has started. Again, the Judiciary Committee has at least 4 RNC Senators who question what the President has done. With time, it is likely these and others can be convinced the larger problem: FISA is only a symptom of a larger pattern of conduct warranting removal from office. More broadly, the issue isn’t whether the Senate will or will not remove this President – but whether they will remove him now – and protect their Senate seats, or assent to the lawlessness and be voted out of office.
Again, there is reason for hope. Returning to the 67 vote requirement – 2/3 to convict. Let’s say in simple terms that 50 Votes are essentially locked in with the DNC; and 17 remain up for grabs. Let’s say for the sake of argument that 17 of those RNC votes are already leaning toward conviction and removal – as evidenced by the 4 RNC Senators on the Judiciary. The key will be at what time and when will the RNC break ranks.
The RNC has no option. Either they choose to defy the President and vote to remove; or the voters will have eight months to digest the problem and vote new Senators. Here’s the problem for the RNC. Each election cycle – 2 years – only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in any given year there are either 33 of 34 Senators of for re-election. During a “normal year” where there is no Presidential impeachment issue, the seats are fairly secure, with a few swaying either way.
2006 is different. Unlike the other years when the Seats are fairly certain, the voters now know the Congress has been part of the problem. The voters are also swinging away from the RNC. Let’s say using rough averages that of the 33 seats in the Senate on the voting ballot this November, that the vote swings toward the DNC, and instead of a “normal” 50/50 split, the split is something link 60/40. This means that 20 of the seats, up by three are most likely locked into the DNC, tipping the balance, and also reducing our 14 swing margin to 10.
This means that relying solely on argument alone, the DNC only has to convince 10 remaining RNC Senators that the way forward is to remove the President. Rove has threatened to blacklist anyone in the RNC who does not support the President in his rebellion against the President. The way forward is whether the voters agree with the rebellion or whether they choose to find leaders who commit to remove this man from office.
Here’s the problem for the RNC: The public, voters, and even the least savvy have woken up to what is going on: The public knows the President has violated the law; that the arguments about Hamdii are a distraction; and that FISA explicitly states language related to use of wiretaps in wartime. On all fronts the President’s position is at best weak. Yet, this does not factor in the public’s reasonable concern that the president’s misconduct is not isolated to domestic issues, but pervasive across all statutory regimes. Self-evidently, this pattern of abuses is no different than the long string of abuses listed in the Declaration of Independence.
That’s what we know. What we don’t know is “all the other stuff” that the President is doing that – as was done with FISA – hinges on non-sense, and uses legal fiction to assert the right/power to violate the law. At this juncture, we can only speculate. But given the President’s conduct on other fronts – Guantanamo, Iraq WMD, Abu Ghraib, Eastern European detention centers, and domestic spying – it’s reasonable that the evidence is there warranting removal. Bluntly, this president is in rebellion against the Constitution and he does not work with Congress or the Courts. He has already violated the law. One does not negotiate with those who have openly defied their oath. The way forward is to remove this man from office.
Going forward, the voters know they have nine months from today to discuss what is going on, whether the Congress is or is not going to do anything; and what will be done.
We have two problems: First the President is in rebellion and the Senate does not appear interested in asserting their oath; Secondly, there’s the assumption that Congress isn’t going to do anything, so why bother. Bluntly, this is the RNC saying, “Hay, we know we’re caught, but let’s delay . . .”
Those days are over. Today, the voters have woken up. The states are already moving on impeachment. This will force an up or down vote, and the public will know where the Congress stands on n the rule of law. Again, the House has already delayed on the Patriot Act renewals; and the Senate Judiciary Committee is already tipping away from the President.
What’s changed? Well, bluntly Gonzalez spilled the beans. He’s now admitted that despite the President’s arguments that he was or was not doing something – FISA was updated at least four times, yet it was no until 2004 that the President discussed the possibly of going to Congress to discuss the needed changes to FISA. Small problem: FISA already specifically states that the FISA statute is the governing language during wartime; and that the President has 12 days before he needs to respond. Nothing in FISA constraints the President’s power – rather it affirms his power to do what must be done to protect the nation.
What’s changed is we now know the Chief Counsel to the President in the wake of 9-11 – now the DoJ Attorney General – has no legal foundation to defend what the President has done. This explains two things: Why the White House and specifically the President have retained private counsel; and why DoJ and NSA senior personnel have already discussed the problems with private counsel in New York.
At this juncture, it’s only a matter of time before the RNC – as it did with Nixon – goes to the President and says, “You don’t have enough votes.”
What’s changed is the voters know they have options can compel a debate at the state level, and they have the means to gather facts, make informed judgments, and call it like it is: The president has defied the law; and Congress is not acting to assert the rule of law.
Congress has one option: To move to assert the rule of law, and remove this man who remains a clear and present danger to the Constitution. He’s already ignored the laws. The issue is not evidence, arguments, or facts but one of degree.
The purpose of this note is to outline the Problem Congress faces in terms that show clearly the voters have the information they need to make informed decisions about Congress – whether they are or are not fit for office; and whether the President should or should not be removed from office.
This paper asserts that the way forward. The voters know there are reasonable, measured, and appropriate criteria they can apply to Congress when making their voting decisions – whether the Congress is asserting the laws, honoring their oaths, and protecting the Constitution; and the similar criteria can be applied to the president in whether he should or should not be removed from office.
The purpose of this paper is not to mandate action, but to outline the issues that voters may wish to discuss at their local levels and at the state when making decisions about who you want to have as your elected officials. We do not assert to have the answers – we only offer this as a framework for the discussion. Ultimately, the voters may decide that they enjoy being lied to, and having their leadership refuse to take action, and that the President can violate the law without any threat of oversight. If that is what the voters want, they’re no reason they should do anything than they‘ve already done: Assent to the President’s rebellion and defer to Congress whether or not the Constitution will be protected.
It is our view that the voters – in the wake of the Gonzalez hearing, and combined with the state level discussions sparked with the state proclamations – will have the very debate this country should have had in the wake of 9-11, before the Iraq invasion, and before the 2004 election. Fortunately, the founding fathers mandated elections every two years. What was once deferred or suppressed is now an issue the voters will review in great detail, with careful consideration.
If only the Congress had done what the voters are now well equipped to do.
From the debates at the local level will emerge self-evident leaders who can do what Congress has found impossible: Face reality.
The core problem is this President and Congress has agreed to assent to the Presidential rebellion against the Constitution. The States can trigger action with a proclamation and observe whether the Congress asserts the rule of law. Regardless what Congress does or doesn’t do between now and the 2006 elections, each action – and in this case, inaction – will be further evidence for the voters that the Congress has no plan to do their jobs. That is a good thing. This will give the voters information they need to make an informed decision.
The way forward is to lawfully remove this President from power, and then explore the mess he’s created, then work with the Congress to remedy these problems. Most likely, the solution will come in the form of an NSA-like program whereby Congress randomly samples Executive Branch communications to ensure the information they get is reliable.
In the short term, the answer is to inform the voters and remind them that Congress can raise a militia to suppress this president’s unlawful rebellion against the Constitution. The 14th Amendment also recognizes that any who are in rebellion against the Constitution low all claim to any future office. The voters will be able to use the 14th Amendment to decide whether their elected officials have freely chosen to assert their oaths; or whether they have joined the rebellion.
There are two issues to be explored:
Out of this analysis will come a clear set of Presidential abuses – when compared to the Declaration – will be familiar. The way forward is to use the fruit of this analysis to establish a clear list of abuses which the Congress must address. In short, just as the Declaration outlined the problems with the Constitution remedied, the way forward is to think broadly in terms of what is going on, and what will Congress need to do to remedy this issue.
However, the way forward appears to face a roadblock: There very forum needed to remedy this problem is the very forum which this president has convinced to join him in rebellion: the Congress. Thus, this is the reason for the State proclamation effort: The proclamations, before they are created, will be the fruit of local voters like you discussing the issues and making it clear what you expect of your leadership. The proclamations on the impeachment issue will send a clear signal to Congress: We know you’re not doing your job; and we will compel you to choose – are you with this President’s rebellion or are you with the Constitution. Thus, by forcing Congress to show its hand, the voters can decide what must be done: Do we assent with Congress, or do we assert the rule of law.
They way forward is to let your friends know that there is a reasonable way forward: Mandate Congress to act to remove the president; or Congress will be removed. There is no other option. Their oaths to God was to protect this Constitution. Any other action will be in rebellion and assent to what we self-evidently have: Unchecked power, and a Congress that refuses to subdue this president’s rebellion.
The way forward is to make a case to the Senate that this President must be removed from office. This will require a clear showing of what conduct warrants removal; what this President has been doing; and why the current lawful approaches have failed. In other words, the case to be made to the Senate isn’t simply whether the President has or hasn’t violated the law – but why the violations are part of a larger pattern of conduct showing the President, if he were to remain in office, would simply engage in more violations and destroy the Constitution.
We argue we’re already passed that point. However, understandably the weather has not been favorable for the past 5 years making it somewhat inconvenient for the Congress to review their oaths of office and the Constitution; so perhaps they will see the clearing skies when the state debates ensue.
There are two analysis required. First, a set of criteria or factors related to the Executive: Why he should or should not be removed; and a second send related to Congress: Whether they are or are not doing their job. Both sets of factors need to be considered when discussing at your local level: Who do we trust to assert their oath of office. How your local officials respond to these issues will tell you something about how seriously they take their oath. But words and promises are meaningless. You’ll also want to get some evidence that the local officials are serious about investigations – and ensure that their promised reviews amount to something. Thus, you have nine months to review whether your local officials are actually listening, reviewing matters, and solving problems. If they say they’re for the rule of law, but only engaging in white wash investigations, then that is a good sign that they’re giving lip service. You have nine months to find someone else who asserts their oath not excuses.
Let’s summarize what is going on. The Senate will have one role: To listen and vote up or down whether this President should or should not be removed from office. The case the House will have to make to the Senate during the Conviction phase is:
To evaluate whether someone is or is not fit for office we have to make a list of factors or criteria. Here is a list of criteria to decide if someone is fit for office:
However, before we get to this stage, we have to admit the problem: The US has two problems:
Small problem: State level proclamations will force the House to Commit: Do we assent to the violations and do nothing – as we have for the last 5 years – or do we wake up, clean out our eyes, and start working for a living.
Thus, the next phase is to look at what is going on with Congress. In other words, before Congress is going to do their job, the voters have to remind Congress that they too have obligations which – if not met – warrant their removal. Thus, the 2006 election.
But we do not wait for the 2006 election to act. Rather, the action has already started at the state level. The debates are over the issues and the rule of law.
The criteria for Congress to meet – and for voters to debate – is simple: Are they doing their job. Here is a list of criteria you may wish to use to decide if Congress is asserting their oath and the system of Checks and balances:
But that’s only the start of it. Because there are other factors to consider. These are the “sings of problems” that suggest we have something else. Remember, not all things are 100% certain; so don’t get hung up on “we have to prove this with all certainty.” Rather, look at the issue in terms of what is most likely true. Also, as you debate consider something else: What does the larger pattern of conduct since 2000 indicate: Is there a pattern, is the conduct getting worse, and is there any sign that it is going to freely stop.
However you answer that, the way forward must spring from the Constitution. Any other approach is without legal foundation.
Here are the signs of problem over whether Congress is or is not doing their job:
Here are indicators that there are problems:
The fact of the matter is: All the signs of failure are with the United States, and there is not plan to assert the Constitution.
The way forward is two fold: Set a deadline – if missed, there will be more state action to compel a House vote on impeachment; and elect a crew to Congress that will put its oath to the Constitution before its loyalty to this President’s rebellion.
Things have changed.
Some argue that the issue should be handled behind closed doors, taken to the courts, or let a special prosecutor handle this.
All those options have given us what we have: A rebellion.
The way forward is to recognize what exists:
Anything that delays is a rebellion against the Constitution.
Investigations are pointless. The public will be denied the information until after the election. Congress knows they have to deal with this – and the imminent state proclamations will drive this point home. If Congress does not act, the voters can find new leaders in November 2006.
What’s needed are new officials in DC who move to end this rebellion. They can both find religion today and vote to end this rebellion and lawfully remove the President from office; or they themselves will lawfully be removed from office.
The issue today is not what the NSA is or is not doing. That comes later after we have new leadership. The way forward is to send a clear signal to DC: Wake up now, or pack your bags. This non-sense ends.
The real issue is that the Federal Government and White House have threatened the American public with a simple threat: “Unless you join our rebellion we will threaten, harassment and intimidate you. The record is clear. Look at Plame, the RNC demonstrations, the Iraq WMD debate, the non-sense with the smears against Sibel Edmonds, Lt Col Schaeffer, and Scott Ritter, and many others.
This Presidents’ rebellion must be called what it is: A continuing attack on the Constitution and our way of life: The rule of law.
Again, we’re talking about what the Senate must be convinced of. For those of you who have been asleep for the past 5 years, it might be appropriate at this time to share with you what has happened.
The list of Presidential abuses is long. They are self-evidently at odds with the Constitution. The problem is not evidence or facts, but of degree. We have recurring problems to present to the Senate in a simple way:
Unlike 1776 where the Colonies had to say enough, it is time to say “enough” this President. He is in rebellion. The only way forward is for this Constitution and this president to part ways. The Constitution will remain. This President’s Presidency is about to lawfully end.
Let’s review the general list of abuses and misconduct. Again, you’ll see they compare rather well with the abuses in the Declaration of Independence. The point isn’t to say “here’s the evidence,” but to give you a sense of the pattern of misconduct that shows the FISA is not simply a single crime, but a symptom of a larger pattern of misconduct which can only be remedied through lawful removal from office.
Here are the President’s problems:
Let’s consider the general pattern conduct:
He makes up information and lies
He moves leaders and prosecutors examining his misconduct
He publicly says one thing about warrants, but does the opposite with his unlawful surveillance
He agrees to the lat, but then says he will exercise judgment whether he will or will not assent to that law
He refuses to desist from his rebellion
He points to non-sense as excuses for inaction
He will not say that his agents are or are not following the law
He defines reality as something outside Article 1 Section 8 – but the current situation falls well inside the existing, specific laws
He sends our troops to distant lands to fight for principles not practiced at home
He encourages others to lie, abuse, threaten, intimidate, and openly attack others when the facts are at odds with his agenda
He refuses to answer questions
He openly brags that he is in defiance of the laws and Constitution and will continue to do so
He uses excuses for everything
He violates the laws against inhuman treatment
He encourages others to violate the law but their cause is not just
He makes up information to divert attention, create alarm, and compel others to act without debate
He threatens those who present the facts
He orders others to violate the laws of war and DoD directives
He is unresponsive to other views
He aggrees with other nations to invade unlawfully
He moves without regard to facts or evidence, invading countries whether they are a real or imagined threat
He creates excuses to justify lawlessness
He points to irrelevant documents – that never existed – at the time of his violation
He agrees to assent to the rules of courts, but then ignores them
He transports people to distant places without trail
He changes rules on whether people can or cannot have trial
He ignores our laws, saying that laws do not apply
He takes oaths to tell the truth, but lies
He takes oaths to enforce the law, yet ignores the laws and his oath.
He says we are for Democracy, but Democratic results invite sanctions and alarm
Rather than assent to the rule of law, his oath, or Constitution – he says these things are irrelevant, that we are in a special time and a special place.
The rule of law exists, not where this man is. The Constitution and the man are not in the same universe The Constitution is our universe. It is time to let this man free to roam the universe, not ours.
It is clear this man has no regard for the laws. It remains to be seen what else has happened. But that fact finding will come later. It is not our job to make contingent our good judgment on the casual cooperation of those who have one goal: Non-cooperation.
We need not recognize his power – he is in defiance of his oath. It is time to remove him lawfully from office. The list of abuses is long. We will find out more later.
The way forward is simple:
The time for excuses and defenses is over. Congress has shown they are unwilling to do what must be done.
Thus, the states shall act to compel Congress to commit: For or against the Constitution; for or against this President’s rebellion. Both Houses must choose.
Choose wisely.
Regardless what Congress may or may not choose, the States will continue with their debates: Is Congress doing what ought to be done? The time for Congress to debate has ended. All we’ve heard are arguments why we should or should not put up with this non-sense.
The time for government talking is over: Get off the political stage. There’s an easy way or a hard way.
The point is that the White House – by its refusal to assent to the rule of law – has lost a right to continue talking.
The point of this action is so the Voters will see:
The voters know:
Some might say there are two options: Congress can lawfully remove the President from office, or the people can vote out of office those who refuse to remove him. This process requires several tests:
If fact, Congress has one option: Solve this problem: Assert the oaths, lawfully remove this man. If Congress fails, the states will solve it:
The world and voters know they no longer need to assent to DC timelines of inaction, delay, and obfuscation. The States will and already have forced the issue.
Whether the voters do or do not vote does not change the oath Congress and the President took to this Constitution, and compelling you to act:
You have no other option. Anything which assents to continued lawlessness tells the voters who are with this President’s unlawful rebellion. We have nine months to find someone who can open heir eyes, and read the document you took an oath to defend.
There is hope. Congress may have opened its eyes. Congress is on notice. They need to act. What follows is a discussion of the issues Congress needs to timely resolve.
Regardless what Congress does or does not do, the voters also understand what they can do – they too can debate the issues – a sampling of some of those state level issues and questions are in the second section.
Area 1: Congress’ Responsibility: Weather Permitting
These are the questions Congress must ask
Bush is unfit, as is Congress because they agree to tyranny and describe all events in Article 1 Section 8 as “something else.”
The NSA unlawful conduct is merely the provable anecdote of a long chain of conduct showing this President is unfit for office.
The issue is: Will the Congress see bush as what he is: An unreliable counter party who should be fired. The current status of this President: He has no intent to comply with agreements or the law.
Yet, it is clear that Article 1 Section 8 covers the situations this man says are “new”
Article 1 Section 8 clearly gives Congress the power to make rules and clearly says what is going on: This President ignores, violates the law and Constitution.
The Gonzalez hearings were a simple litmus test of Congressional Competence: Whether Congress faces the real issue: FISA violations as evidence of unfitness for office.
If Congress fails to charge the President for violation the law – and focuses on endless investigations of matters the President has openly admitted -- this tells the voters several things about Congress, namely Congress:
We will not discuss, negotiate, or baring with a counter party that has not intent to comply with agreements or the law. The problem is that the desired results – assent to the rule of law – is not with the scope of this White House’s radar.
The problem with this President and Congress: They believe talking, committee hearings, and sharing information is the same as checks and balances. Rather, power must clash and the rule of law and agreement to assent to that law must be the result.
Congress has a problem because they have failed to timely end this rebellion with an easy action: Remove the leaders of the unlawful rebellion.
Congress is part of the problem. They’re engaging in bargaining, discussions with someone who should long ago have been lawfully removed from the political stage. The long string of abuses show he has no intention to comply with the law. He says whatever he has to do fool the people. That is not a serious defender of the constitution, but a rebellious threat.
The way forward is to end the debate, and not bother collecting “more information” over “the program.” It is time to end the rebellion. Get a new team. Create a system for Congress to monitor the executive conduct.
Congress’s problem is that it believes “checks and balances” is the same as “asking the guilty to voluntary reform.” That will not work. This leadership shows – by its arguments – its not willing to cooperate but defy the law. Even when it is caught, exposed, and held up to public scrutiny. Nothing will stop this leader, even the law.
The time for bargaining is over.
Congress is looking at the wrong issue of “Congressional reform” without first address the central issue: How will this rebellion be lawfully ended.
Congress belief it can ‘reform the system” by discussion, gathering facts, and negotiating for information.
The same leadership will find new ways to achieve the same end – spread the rebellion -- and ignore the law.
The voters need to watch the nature of the Congressional discussion. Notice the non-sense discussions on “the program”, and refusing to focus on the real issue – the man and his violations of the law.
Voters need to ask whether the line of inquiry looks at the real issues. If Congress does not come up with a plan to end this rebellion – and end the rebellion – voters have the information they need to understand:
The current information, approach, and methods show Congress is unfit to do what must be done: Lawfully remove a threat and end the rebellion. The issue for 2006 is: Do the voters trust leaders – at the local, state, and national level to:
The problem is that Congress is on an annual budget-rubber-stamping cycle. They do not want to deal with the issue. They have no answer or solution to ending this rebellion.
The states can force an end by canceling contracts that unlawfully support this President’s rebellion.
Congress is part of the problem. Voters know they have options. Citizens can debate at the local level on state proclamations to compel action.
This Congress has had plenty of time to see the issues and patterns. This Congress refuse to act to end this threat.
Another inquiry and line of evidence is just a delay in doing what must be done: By 01 March 2006.
After that the states will make more moves to change Congress, compel action, and end this President’s threat to the Constitution by lawfully removing him from Congress
The issue will be whether Congress can wee they are doing or require the state proclamations to compel action. All the voters have heard are excuses. The voters know they have options to compel action.
We’ve had five years of this Rebellion. Congress ha failed. They are with the President. Voters have nine [9] months to debate at the state and federal level to compel an end to this, or find new leaders who will put the rule of law and oaths before “other things.”
There are clear signs this White House rebellion is ending and Congress is moving. But the rebellion continues. The White House continues to use nonsense to avoid accountability.
The only way to end the President’s abuse is to force this President to lead or lawfully remove him from office. He remains more than a threat – he openly defies our laws and Constitution.
He must be lawfully removed.
Congress needs to show with timely responses that they’ve wake up and aren’t going to delay as they did with Phase II.
Area 2: The states level discussions
Regardless whether Congress does or does not act, the State-level voters know they have option to create a simple mandate for new leadership. The new leadership must:
The way forward is the local voter and debates. A State proclamation will force the House to show its hand and commit whether it is for or against the President’s rebellion.
They way forward at eh state level:
The state proclamation effort is an early indication of who is or isn’t with the rebellion. Even if a state or municipality or parish refuses to take action, that is important information for the voters: Where does the leadership stand o self-evident abuses of power.
The states have a powerful tool: Proclamations. These proclamations need to communicate to all:
The states can decide: Are we going to let our state resources be used for unlawful purposes:
States need to explore their legal options:
The voters understand what is going on: Congress has failed – either the President goes, or the Congress goes. Either way, the President’s political future is over.”
Voters have nine months to explore:
Voters have nine months to debate:
“other things” and “endless fact finding” are not the focus. The question: Is this man fit for office.
The leadership must assess whether they can or will evaluate the self-evident conduct and violations.
To decide whether this man is or is not fit for office, there is one simple test of relevance: Is the information related to the individual and issue in question. The issue for the 2006 election – as all elections: Does the leadership focus on relevant information.
For examine, when examining fitness for office, does the leadership focus on relevant facts, excuses, or “something else.”
Remember, the goal of this inquiry, debate, and discussion: If this man is not fit for office, who shall replace him? Your answer will be who you choose to be your leader – for when this man is replaced, from the well of the House will be drawn the fresh leadership.
The questions votes should discuss:
The issue is whether the leadership can identify what is happening: The White House has no defense for the NSA program or its violations of the law. It is irrelevant to argue over technical details or “the program.” The issue is the law and the fitness of this man to assent freely to that law.
This man chooses to defy the law, we need not embark on an endless voyage of discovery to explore what is self-evident. He is unfit to lead and should be removed from office.
The key for voters will be to focus on:
Anything else are signs your leadership needs to be replaced with those who put their oath before “something else.” It doesn’t matter what their excuses are for that “something else.” They have one oath, and nothing else. They swore that oath to God.
The likely debates may wander into non-sense discussion over “the program”. But this does noting to end the rebellion or send a signal that the leadership focus on relevant issues.
Citizens, the best way forward is to assess whether Congress is serious about ending this rebellion:
The voters know they can force Congress to act. If Congress fails, the voters have the option to find leaders who are serious.
Choose wisely.
Added: 08 Feb 2006 Issue: Whether these are bonafide Congressional fact finding, with the intent to swiftly protect the Constitution; or engage in a phantom investigation to delay the results until after the November Election. Concern These are ongoing developments, and as the voters hear more they'll judge whether the rule of law and Constitution are being asserted or ignored. If the House does not timely move on impeachment, the State proclamation will occur. There are some curious developments, but we remain cautious that these are merely delaying actions, not something that will warrant serious concern. We encourage voters to continue pressing for State Proclamations and compel the House to vote soon, not embark on endless investigations. Sample Investigations: Fact finding is good; but not when we already know the issue: The President and Congress are joined in a rebellion; and plan no action until after the 2006 election, as they did with Phase II. This needs to end. We need to have some leadership, decisions, and a plan forward. This is one perspective on what could be used to lawfully remove the President; and force the Congress to commit -- then get the voters to make a decision based solely on whether the House and Senate choose to take action on what is known. |
posted by Constant @ 1:57 PM
<< Home