Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Vermont State leadership afraid of committing to rule of law

Lessons Learned

Instead of being the first to pass a proclamation calling for the US House of Representatives, Vermont is the fifth state to request the Congress do what it refuses to do: Their jobs. Is anything going to change?

Vermonters got some rude information from their State leadership: They're not serious about the rule of law or holding people accountable.
"I think there's good reason why they didn't pass the Rutland resolution. They didn't want their legislative candidates to have to take a stand and go on record with a vote," Barnett said.Ref
Hey, this is the point of the resolution and state proclamation calling for Congress to impeach the President: To find out whether people -- at the state and federal level -- are willing to take a stand -- seven [7] months before the election -- on whether the rule of law shall prevail. Vermont said, "No." The nation has seven months to digest this before the election. We aren't finding this out after they've been elected. Great news!

The People of the State of Vermont have new information: The State leadership is not willing to assert the rule of law and make informed decisions. Yes, this is a very good piece of information. You have seven [7] months to use this to your advantage, make informed decisions and find people who are willing to assert their oath, not assent to this President’s unlawful rebellion against the Constitution.

Now Vermonters have plenty of time to find new leaders.

"Sometimes, I wonder how good German people could have stood by and watched, either silently or complicity, allowing unspoken horrors happening in their name? Now I watch, as my fellow Americans lay silent, or more unbelievably support untold horrors happening in our name. Extraordinary Rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and an American president claiming he has the right to torture! Is this truly the kind of country we want to become?" -- PHILLIP DEWINE, Republican See: Comment 30

Why is the Vermont DNC unwilling to support a state proclamation calling for the US Congress to investigate Bush's impeachable offenses?

They offer nothing but non-sense and do not understand what they were trying to do. Wow, how could a resolution reach the highest positions within the Vermont DNC, but the "experts" behind that idea couldn't explain what was going on?

* * *

A state proclamation only has effect -- for purposes of impeachment -- if it is passed by the State legislature. A DNC resolution calling for the Congress to do something is meaningless.

A state proclamation is privileged: Meaning, once it arrives in the House it has to get voted one. The entire purpose of the state proclamation is to do exactly what the Vermont DNC refuses to do -- force the RNC in the US House to commit, up or down -- well in advance of the 2006 election. Whether the House does or does not impeach based on a specific resolution is not the aim. Rather, the goal is to force the RNC to commit well before the election so that the public can decide based on the RNC vote on impeachment whether the RNC should or should not be trusted. This is important to know before the 2006 election.

The Vermont DNC didn't want to commit to a vote, destroying the effectiveness of the proclamation. The idea of the proclamation is to force the Congress to act -- on information about to be released. [ Click ] Vermont missed this opportunity.

What's going on? Well the White House is doing what it has always done and changing the issue, and getting people to compromise on what should not be compromised. Look at the White House smearing over Vermont, and you'll see the similarity with the RNC framing: Keep in mind this is a 1 April 2006 -- April Fools -- story, but in light of the DNC vote, you may wonder if there's not something going on: [ Click ]

This is a good sign: The White House can't rationally deal with the rule of law. Rather, it has to use non-sense. Keep that in mind as you consider this unfolding plan: [ Click ]

* * *

Take a look at Section 603: of the Jefferson's Manual Click

Now, compare that to the non-sense the RNC is getting others to believe; also not clear why AP is quoting this DNC'r about matters of the House rules: he's got a 1982 Master of Science Degree in Computer Science from 1982 Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania. Inners used to work as an IT guy for Congressman Gephardt, has contributed no funds according to the Federal Election Commission to the DNC, and is NOT listed as an attorney in Martindale Hubbel:

Michael Inners, of Grand Isle, said the rule cited by the Rutland committee actually was not part of the original "Jefferson's Manual" that's incorporated into U.S. House rules. He said the language cited by the Rutland committee was part of a parliamentarian's notes interpreting the rules.

This is meaningless, incorrect, and irrelevant. Section 603 specifically is cited correctly, and outlines what the House is to do: Act on a Proclamation from a State.

What the RNC has done is confused the issue. These are red herrings:

A. Whether the rule is or is not part of the original manual; or

B. whether Jefferson's Manual is or is not incorporated; or

C. whether the current rules are or are not permissive when it comes to

The current rules -- as they are cited in section 603 -- explicitly permit a State Proclamation; and mandate that that proclamation is privileged. Meaning: It takes priority, and forces the House -- and the RNC -- to commit up or down on that State Proclamation. It can't be buried in committee.

* * *

If you want to call the Vt DNC leadership, here you go: [ Click ]

Here's the old information:

Office Name
Assistant Treasurer Michael Inners

Address Town Zip Phone
73 E. Shore S Grand Isle 05458 372-8515

Here's his e-mail:

We'd have to find out if this was the same guy:>, g-inners@gumby.UUCP (Michael Inners)

What would be strange is if this were the same guy:, valid as of October 1997. Yes, guess who was the IT manager for Rep. Richard Gephardt's office in Congress? Big Mike. You can ask Cassandra Q. Butts -- yes, her real name -- about Michael. She was Gehhardt's advisor on IT in 2004, and should be able to tell you about any IT issues in the Congressman's office.

How does someone get to be on a Congressman's staff, but get away with not providing any contributions? That seems kind of odd.

Let me get this straight: This is a guy who was supposedly on the IT department for the House -- and had plenty of time to read the House rules while there, theoretically -- but now, as an IT expert wants us to believe what he says on the House rules? That's complete non-sense.

What's strange is that the only listing for Innis in DC -- which we would expect to be linked to Michael given that he worked for Gephardt -- was someone by the name of Mrs. Walter Innis. Wow, did Michael know about this?

The closest I can get is INNES, not INNERS: [Click ]

Here's his key ID: [ CLick ] and Congressional E-mails: [ Click ]

In 2000, Vermont Energy Investment Corp. (VEIC) [Burlington, VT] hired INNERS to Efficiency Vermont, a new statewide energy efficiency utility.
Inners, Michael x1036
Information Technology Mgr.

Putting aside who this guy really is, or why he has no FEC record of providing funds to the DNC, what really got in the way of correcting the proclamation, Michael? If you were "so certain" of the problem, why not fix it -- or is there another reason to believe what you're saying? You seem pretty busy with all your committees -- how do you keep up with all this, while at the same time not seeing any record of you having gone to law school like Jeffry Taylor, the author of the proclamation Rutland, Vt?

Ask him why there was no effort to modify the language and get the state to support a proclamation?

Ask him what kind of discussions if any he had with Jeffry Taylor, to discuss the Jefferson's Manual, or Section 603, or the House Rules related to State Proclamations?

Ask him why they said the proclamation had to be perfect when the House rules in Congress permit changes to the language.

That will be a good thing for Vermonters to know as you work on the citizen petition for a State proclamation. It looks like the RNC and DNC -- as they are in DC -- are both actively moving at odds with accountability.

* * *

Take a look at the Lake Champlain Valley wedding officials:

73 East Shore North,
Grand Isle,05458
Phone : 802-372-8515

Isle appears to really like reasons not to assert the rule of law when it comes to matters of the US Constitution. What kind of effort -- if any -- did he make to ensure the proclamation was something that could be supported?

Or are we to believe that he only focused on those arguments that the RNC -- yes the RNC -- gave to justify inaction?

Kind of makes you wonder about someone's inclination to really look into matters. Is there something that warrants some additional attention, or are we to believe that the "apparent willingness to embrace non-sense to justify inaction" is isolated only to important Federal questions?

Makes you wonder if he has a hard time reading, or has a problem following directions on relatively simple things like [ . . .wait for it . . . ] weddings.

How do you justify confidence in your leadership?

* * *

So Isles is one to apparently throw up his hands and find a really good excuse to do nothing. What's this say about this organization:

Is Inners doing the same when it comes to rules related to the Educational objectives or the organizations, or does he have a double standard:

  • A. When it comes to House rules in the Federal Government he finds reasons to do nothing; but

  • B. When it comes to Vermont rules, he will find an excuse to do nothing as well?

    Who's looking out for you, Vermont!

    Inners is a systems developer with the IT department with ANR. What's up with that -- how can someone possibly put together a system design if they apparently have trouble understanding what a simple rule is? Or are we to believe that "more difficult" things like IT are easy -- while the "simple rules" are more complicated? That makes no sense. How about that outsourcing of IT to India!

    Inners is a 1982 Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University.

    Here's the address:
    Carnegie Mellon University
    143 North Craig Street, Whitfield Hall
    Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890

    Let's say he provided money sometimes between 1982 and 1997 in Philadelphia, is there anyone by the name of Michael Inners in PA?

    * * *

    Then there's this strange message linking Inners to Wisconsin:
    From: swlabs!jack@uunet.UU.NET (Jack Bonn)
    Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
    Date: 16 Oct 87 17:34:54 GMT

    In article <>, g-inners@gumby.UUCP (Michael Inners) writes:
    > There is precedent for such a rule in that devices designed to record phone
    > conversations are required to emit a 'beep' tone to alert the other party.

    why using "G Inners?"

    From: Communications Week, September 28, 1987

    Does the NSA hire people to avoid consequences for illegal NSA activity?

    From: (Michael Inners)
    Subject: Re: New Service in BetaTest at NJ Bell
    Date: 19 Oct 87 11:34:50 GMT
    Reply-To: (Michael Inners)

    In article <550@swlabs.UUCP> jack@swlabs.UUCP (Jack Bonn) writes:
    >In article <>, g-inners@gumby.UUCP (Michael Inners) writes:
    >> There is precedent for such a rule in that devices designed to record phone
    >> conversations are required to emit a 'beep' tone to alert the other party.
    >I this the case? I thought it was only necessary when there was a chance
    >that neither party was knowledgeable about the recording device. If either
    >party (me, if I'm operating the machine) knows it is operating, I thought
    >that no tone was necessary.

    According to the Wisconsin Bell (Ameritech) people:

    "If your conversation is being recorded for business or other reasons,
    one of the following MUST apply:

    All parties to the conversation must give their prior consent to the
    recording of the conversation and the prior consent must be obtained in
    writing or be part of and obtained at the start of the recording. Or,

    A distinctive recorder 'beep' tone, repeated every 15 seconds, is required
    to alert all parties when the recording equipment is in use."

    It then gives a few exceptions for law enforcement, 911 numbers, and
    broadcasters recording for rebroadcast.

    I also believe that the FCC requires that this beep tone be generated
    by all FCC-certified equipment intended for direct connection to the
    telephone network.
    -- Michael Inners

    Other associates:

    KITT: 2006

    Knowledge-Based Information Technology Tool
    May 20, 2005


    Efficiency Vermont-KITT, Version

    The development of KITT and the KITT Reference Guide is truly an organization-wide effort to better serve our customers. Many thanks to the project team for their dedication, insights and commitment to excellence:

    Contact Management Specifications Team: Lisa Bobzien, Bill Bowman, Pat Haller, Mary
    McCoubrie and Diane Parrow

    KITT Specifications Team: Colleen Bray, Kathleen Brown, Alexandrea Kouame and Diane

    KITT Procedures Development Team: Greg Baker, Bill Bowman, Deb Goodeyon, Bret Hamilton, Molly Hooker, Darrell Marley, Jim Massie, Danielle McMahon andVictor

    Morrison Beta Testers Group: Melissa Bailey, Bill Bowman, Erik Brown, Sara Davie, Neil Curtis, Sheryl Graves, Deb Goodeyon, Molly Hooker, Diane Parrow and JoAnna Perron

    Software Development Team: Michael Inners, Heather Monti, Bill Pierson and Chris Schuft

    Training Development Team: Bethany Deyo, Jules Fishelman and Jessica Staats
    Training Input: Melissa Bailey, Bill Bowman, Kathleen Brown, Sara Davie, Karl Goetze, Deb Goodeyon, Kris Hatfield, Molly Hooker, Darrell Marley, Jim Massie, Mary McCoubrie, Danielle McMahon, Victor Morrison, Diane Parrow, Greg Pedrick, JoAnna Perron, Jay Pilliod, Walter Scott, Paul Scheckel and Art Sousa

    Primer Assistants: David Cawley, Janice Dawley and Diane Parrow

    * * *

    Here’s the issue: Michael Inners -- or whoever your name is -- your details aren't matching. How does someone become a "big DNC person" but there's no record of you having provided any money?

    The only records we have related to INNERS are from PA, but those went to the DNC.

    Click CLick Click

    The only person named "INNERS" in 2004 who is listed as contributing is a lady in Florida.

    Is your name really Michael Inners?

    Where else have you lived besides VT and outside the DC area?

    How does someone in PA get hooked up with a Congressman from MO?

    Did you ever work at the University of Wisconsin?

    How does someone spend as much time as you have in the DNC, but there's no record of you having contributed any money to the DNC?

    * * *

    Here are questions to review with the DNC and RNC leadership in Vermont:

  • Why is the DNC afraid of forcing the RNC to vote on impeachment in the house before the 2006 election?

  • How can information -- about whether the RNC in the DC House standards on the rule of law, before the 2006 election -- be a bad things for voters to know about?

  • What's the reluctance to force the RNC to vote and commit -- well before the 2006 election -- where they stand on the rule of law?

  • Why is the DNC afraid of forcing the House to vote?

  • Why was there no real interest in modifying the Resolution to ensure that it was passed, and got supported to force the Federal Government's House of to vote -- up or down?

  • Why is the DNC in Vermont whining about accountability, but it refuses to assert powers to force others to commit to where they stand?

    * * *

    One of the ideas of the 603 effort and the state proclamation is to test whether your state level officials are serious about the rule of law.

    Vermont recently had a chance. They decided --as does the RNC in DC -- that they can't afford to make a commitment.

    "It might tie our hands."

    Wonderful, Vermonters have all the information they need to know: Your DNC leadership isn't serious. Rather, it wants to talk about the rule of law, but it’s afraid of putting in writing what is legal: A state proclamation.

    Where does it say that a state resolution might tie anyone's hands? That is fiction. Rather, the Vermont DNC is -- just as the RNC in DC -- making up non-sense excuses not to do what's possible: Issue a proclamation forcing Congress to [wait for it ] commit to whether they are for or against the rule of law.

    The idea of the proclamation isn't simply to force the Congress to vote, but to determine where the RNC and DNC members of Congress stand. If you're not willing to do that in your own state -- commit to the rule of law -- what right do you have to expect Members of Congress do what you refuse: Take a position on the Constitution?

    This Vermont DNC isn't willing to do that at home. There's no reason America should expect the Vermont State leadership to be serious about the rule of law. Rather they won’t pass a simple resolution. They cannot claim there is or is not a solution at a national level.

    Why the reluctance to do what is possible -- and force the Congress to commit one way or another? We'll never find out from the Vermont DNC, because they aren't willing to apply that standard. Rather, they appeal to ignorance and stupidity to say -- like the RNC does -- we shouldn't do anything.


    * * *

    Vermont citizens should also know that your leadership doesn't understand the House rules, of what the State Proclamation does. It doesn't mandate anything: IT simply tells Congress where Vermont stands.

    Vermont leadership wasn't willing to do that.

    Rather, it relied on non-sense -- as does the RNC -- to avoid taking a stand.

    * * *

    Vermonters and the nation should closely examine what is happening in Vermont:

  • What kind of non-sense are the leaders using to not commit to the rule of law

  • How much confusion does the leadership have on simple proclamations

  • Where's the "big expert" on the Jefferson's Manual that supposedly put forward this idea?

    At this juncture, the "experts" that put forward the idea is silent -- oh, where is Jeffry Taylor, and the rest of the crew that were going to put forward the idea?

    A few weeks ago we were told that this wouldn't do anything in Congress. But the real story is -- just as the RNC has done with Congress and the nation -- is to appeal to ignorance and stupidity to justify inaction.

    That's no leadership. That smacks of one thing: A failure of the leadership to even take a stand, and put forward a simple notion of where they stand on the rule of law.

    Vermonters, you haven't failed. Rather, your leadership has. You have all the information you need to lawfully remind your leadership that you expect leadership, not excuses for inaction.

    Your leadership has failed you. The people of Vermont should be proud: You attempted to do something novel, but your legal leadership failed to ensure they had their story straight.

    * * *

    If this was "such a good idea," where's David Gram and Jeffry Taylor now? We can only wonder. They took credit for a nifty idea, but are no where to be found.

    Hay, Jeffry the "really neat idea" you came up with just got shot down. The least you could have done was be there to attempt to implement the notion. Where were you, or are there some other questions that need to be answered and your real involvement in the effort?

    You might want to read this: The other questions David Gram and Jeffry Taylor didn't talk about: [ Click ]

    You'd think that if a "really good lawyer" from Vermont "just happened to read the Jefferson's manual, and craft a resolution that he'd be in a position to make sure people understood what he was trying to do.

    So here's your "big chance," Jeffry -- how about it: What happened, why did this fall down, and how come you don't seem to be able to explain House Rule 603 and what this state proclamation may or may not do?

    * * *

    For those of you who can't read between the lines, and can't take a hint: If you're going to say that you have a solution, then at least make sure that the solution you've put forward actually relates to something.

    Vermonters have found out the hard way: That you can be first with a "really neat idea" but your leadership will come up with non-sense -- like the RNC in DC -- to do exactly the opposite of the will of the people.

    Why are the leaders in Vermont afraid of committing to the rule of law, or have they been convinced to support the President’s unlawful rebellion against the Constitution.

    Vermonters, you have seven months to find better leaders. Ones who are willing to take the time to listen to lawyers; and also time to find better people, who are willing to listen to the rule of law, not make up excuses to slow roll accountability.

    * * *

    Time to ask yourselves Vermonters, are you willing to "just go along with this Rebellion against the Constitution," or are you interested in talking about a New Constitution that will make your leaders in Vermont do what they refuse to do: Protect your Constitution?

    Here's how you can support a lawful change to the US Constitution without going though a Constitutional Convention, and go outside Article V.

    We the People have all the information we need to know: This national leadership has failed, is unresponsive, and they refuse to commit to the rule of law. That is a rebellion.

    Here are thoughts on a New Constitution: [ Click ]

    Is America starting to understand: Not only do your state and federal elected officials try to create the illusion of progress, they aren’t willing to commit to the rule of law. Rather, they’d like to take credit for ideas, but aren’t willing to do the hard work to make sure that idea actually ensures one thing: Protecting the US Constitution.

    How can they argue that they’re legitimate: They refuse to take a stand on the US Constitution. They aren’t sure.

    Vermonters can be sure of one thing: The rule of law and a New Constitution are needed to force your leadership to do what they’ve proven they’re unwilling to do: Hold America’s leadership to account for recklessness, war crimes, and a violation of the rule of law.

    Vermonters, you have seven months to debate this issue and find better leaders who are more interested in the rule of law. Your current crew shows they are stupid, lazy, and disinterested in the US Constitution.

    So much for Vermont “leading the way”. More of the same.


    * * *

    For anyone to believe that "asking" Congress to do something -- that you're not willing to do in Vermont, namely commit -- is asking Congress to do something that they won’t do: Commit.

    You've got two leaders. Both of them can be impeached. Why the desire to limit the options and take Cheney's name of the resolution? NO answer on that.

    If you skip the legislature in Montpelier, then you don't have a state proclamation -- as required by the House rules -- to compel the House to act. So what have you accomplished? You have a bunch of people who don't understand the House rules and have now undermined the process. That's not leadership. That's stupidity.

    * * *

    Look who Barnett is with: The RNC! James Barnett is the chairman of the Vermont Republican Party. Wow, coming up with more excuses to do nothing.

  • Who convinced the majority party to not assert their power?

  • What kind of non-sense did they rely on?

  • What kind of "really neat idea" did the RNC use to dissuade Vermonters -- as they do the US Congress -- not to assert the rule of law?

  • What's the "big plan" to get this resolution passed in other "can't lose" states?

  • How was this possible in Vermont where supposedly there was "nothing" getting in the way of having this resolution passed?

  • Why the reluctance to take a stand:

    Barnett said legislative and other Democratic leaders who wanted to keep the issue out of the Legislature were worried that they and their congressional candidate, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch, would be forced to take a position on the impeachment measure

    Why the concern about whether taking a stand on the rule of law is or is not a good idea:

    "I think there's good reason why they didn't pass the Rutland resolution. They didn't want their legislative candidates to have to take a stand and go on record with a vote," Barnett said.

    Stunning! And this coming from the same RNC that does the same in DC. Should we be surprised? Of course not.

    * * *

    This is irrelevant: The House rules state that the State Proclamation can follow, whether that rule is or is not part of the Jefferson's Manual is irrelevant.

    Michael Inners, of Grand Isle, said the rule cited by the Rutland committee actually was not part of the original "Jefferson's Manual" that's incorporated into U.S. House rules. He said the language cited by the Rutland committee was part of a parliamentarian's notes interpreting the rules.

    In other words, they ignored the House rule 603 that permitted the Jefferson's manual, and listened to the RNC excuses to do nothing. How messed up is that?

    Circular reasoning! What was the excuse not to adjust the wording? They gave up. No effort to fix what was not acceptable. Brilliant. "We can't do this 'rule of law thing,' it's just too hard."

    Thanks, Vermont!

    * * *

    Look at the RNC position, more of the whining we've heard from the RNC in DC:
    James Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, said the Democrats' action "demonstrates that leaders of the Vermont Democratic Party are among the most extreme in the nation to have taken this rather radical and highly partisan step."

    Oh, so holding the war criminals in the Bush Administration to account is "radical"? Wow, stunning!

    Hay, James Barnett: Which side of the rule of law are you on: The President’s rebellion against the Constitution, or for some accountability?

    "Extreme" is what the White House is doing: Invading countries without imminent threat; war crimes; misleading the nation; violating the Geneva Conventions. Barnett, if you want to talk Partisanship, extreme, and radical talk to your friends in the RNC. They know all about that.

    * * *

    Vermonters: You took a bold step. You were willing to take a risk. Notice that your effort to assert the rule of law was hijacked.

  • A. People who did not understand the House Rule 603 failed to drive this resolution;

  • B. The leadership was not given sufficient information to make an informed decisions;

  • C. They made excuses to not do what they should do -- commit to the rule of law;

  • D. They watered down the effect of what is happening

  • E. Those who said they were the source of the idea weren't there to back you up and make sure they were going to get the job done.

  • F. The same propaganda from the RNC -- used to mobilize the nation for an illegal war in Iraq -- was used to stifle the needed action by a state.

    Big Jeffry Taylor claimed to be the one with the idea about Jefferson’s Manual. Where did he go?

    There are 49 other states. Sorry, Vermont. You had your chance and your leadership let you down.

    Onto Rhode Island!

    * * *

    Does the White House plan to mislead the nation with more non-sense, or are we going to get some real questions about the State Proclamation effort and how it is designed to force the leadership to commit: Are you for or against the rule of law?

    David Gram, you got some work for you. Here are the questions you didn't ask when you talked to Jeffry Taylor. What happened? [ Click ]

    * * *

    All, learn the lesson: People will say they are going to take credit, but they won't ensure that the idea -- that they supposedly know all about -- is actively supported.

    The whole idea of the Jefferson's Manual and 603 is to do one thing: Find out whether your state level leadership are willing to do something they have been given the power -- by you, Vermonters -- to do: To protect the Constitution.

    Your legal community and state leadership have failed you. Fortunately, America was not putting the hands of its future and Constitution in the hands of some misguided people from Vermont and attorneys who like to take credit for things they do not understand.

    Who's next and willing to make a commitment: Are you for or against the Constitution; are you willing to assert the laws; do you take time to really understand what is possible; and are you willing to force your leadership to do what they have the power to do: Protect your Constitution.

    America learned from Vermont: People like to talk about the rule of law, but the State leadership isn't willing to force people to commit: "Yes, I'm for the American Constitution."

    Vermonters got one simple message: Your leadership isn't willing to use the power you've given them. You may lawfully revoke the powers they refuse to assert. Are you willing to force your state officials to do that? If you don't, they're going to simply go along with the President's Rebellion against the rule of law.

    Ask them why they are afraid to commit to the rule of law. The real answer is they're not willing to commit their minds to protect the Constitution. They would rather assent to non-sense and not assert lawful state power against a President who remains in rebellion.

    * * *

    If you want to know how this fits in, we have clear information and feedback that many do not understand what may be lawfully required to protect this Constitution. Who in Vermont is ready to claim they’re for that, but are going to get in the way?

    America has learned what it needed to from Vermont: You wanted to be first to put up the roadblock to accountability. Well done, America knows there are other options.

    Taylor and Gram are unable to explain how the State Proclamation fits into this larger plan, which the RNC is unprepared to deal with: [ Click ]

    You might want to talk to Google to find out about their link ranks. Check who's the number one hit on David Gram. You don't think you're taking to the wrong guy, do you?

    Thanks for the feedback, Vermont. The issue is whether the rest of the country is going to take note, or require more bad news. My bet is the RNC will continue what caused this problem: More false starts.

    Eventually, one of the states might wake up. What's it going to take America: You serious about your Constitution, or are you going to listen to more of the excuses we heard from Vermont to "not commit" and "not force" what the leaders took an oath to support: The American Constitution.

    You have to choose: Whether you are going to assert the rule of law, or bow down -- as Vermonters did -- to more non-sense.

    This nation isn’t willing to make people commit to the US Constitution. Can we really believe they’ll be open to the real solutions needed to force American leadership to assert their oaths?


    Here’s what’s needed: A wake up call to the US Senate and a lawful restructuring. America’s leaders aren’t willing to assert power. It’s time to lawfully revoke their power.

    Here’s how: [ Click ]

    Americans, do you want more examples of your leadership failures, or do you require more non-sense?

    Watch out America, the same non-sense the RNC used to invade Iraq -- and supposedly bring law and order to Iraq -- is being used to do the opposite at home: Destroy the American Constitution, and not hold the leadership to the standards of law and order.

    We did it in Iraq. Why is there a fear in the RNC and DNC to bring that law and order to the White House? The answer is you're not willing to hold your leadership accountable to the same standards you impose on other nations.

    No wonder America is actually planning to attack Iraq. Americans aren't serious about the rule of law, and show no interest in doing what is lawful: To ensure the rule of law is asserted, not let to slip away to this tyranny in the White House.

    Or do you want more examples of your foolishness and unwillingness to assert the rule of law? Unless you assert the rule of law, the tyranny will destroy all that you value.

    Tyranny took a big bite out of America. It just devoured the State of Vermont.

    Who's next?

    * * *


    1. State impeachment proclamation forces RNC to commit on rule of law before November 2006 election, important information for voters to know before voting

    The purpose of a proclamation isn't to make the RNC happy. Rather, it's to give the voters information on where the RNC stands in the House on the rule of law. The idea of the proclamation is to force the US Congress well before the 2006 election to vote on impeachment. This result will then give voters new information. The fact that the RNC may "not want to vote" on something the DNC may force after the 2006 election is the purpose of forcing the vote: To make them commit. The DNC isn't being asked to commit -- they're simply being asked to lead the fight in using the tools available. The very fact that a state proclamation may not trigger an impeachment -- despite the overwhelming evidence -- is something the voters need to see the RNC do. The DNC, by doing what it did with Alito -- caving into the RNC on this -- is simply showing it is not willing to do what it takes to force the issue: Do what it takes to show the RNC is not asserting the rule of law. Rather, by refusing to assert this proclamation and playing nice, the DNC shows they are part of the problem: Not willing to accelerate the timeline and give voters before the election real information about where the RNC stands on the rule of law. The inaction means the DNC is no different: Unwilling to assert the rule of law or force others to commit for or against the Constitution. The goal of the state proclamation is to force a vote on impeachment in the House before the 2006 election. The argument that "the proclamation will be meaningless if we lose" is non-sense: They've simply not passed a proclamation as was intended. More of the "we are free if we play nice and do not force others to do things they don't want to do." Nonsense!

    2. RNC is diverted from protecting the President politically

    The RNC has decided to fight the State level impeachments. This is good to know. It remains they have to divert resources from the Fitzgerald indictment, and the additional information swaying Sensenbrenner to question Gonzalez. The RNC is making decisions and framing the issues. What's wrong with the DNC leadership in not explaining what is going on; it remains to be understood why the RNC leadership is getting quoted on why the DNC leadership did or did not do something.

    3. Vermont legal community failed to interface with political leadership

    Lawyers who draft this resolution may not have the political clout to get it passed. If you're going to take credit for an idea, then you need to make sure your resolution gets support as it is worded, otherwise the wording needs to change. There can be changes made to the resolution to ensure that the State proclamation from others states does get support and is passed. The legal community that supposedly came up with the idea and drafted the language was not there to discuss alternatives, or keep the Vermont leadership focused. Looks like many people made some assumptions about whether something would or would not get support on the basis of the idea and proponent, not on what the leadership would ultimately decide: Whether they did or did not want to make a commitment to the rule of law. Without that clear focus and drive to assert the rule of law, it is no wonder the leadership compromised on that core principle: Whether they would or would not do what it takes to assert the rule of law. This crew gave up because it did not do what it took to assert that principle. Rather, they were more interested in assenting to the RNC non-sense excuses: "Do nothing to assert the rule of law over tyranny." If you were really serious, you would have found a way, adjusted the language. That did not happen. We can only conclude they were not serious in asserting the rule of law.

    4. Adjustments

    There was no evidence that the resolution wording was adjusted. The public needs to understand more about the negotiations on the language, and why the language was not adjusted so that it could get support from the majority party in the State. It remains to be explained why there was no effort to adjust the wording to make it just as powerful, but without the offending references. The time to apply this lesson to the next state is at hand. It remains to be understood why the DNC leadership in Vermont threw up their hands, committed to inaction, and threw away a chance to assert the rule of law. Clearly, the problem with the DNC isn't isolated to DC, but crossed both parties: Nobody is serious about asserting the rule of law. How's that indictment against Libby, and the bad news from the White House?

    5. Rule of law

    Vermonters said they were not serious about making a commitment. The issue is, will Americans learn the lessons and do what it takes to show they are willing commit to the rule of law. If not, how do you expect your leadership in DC to do otherwise? If you're going to collapse on non-sense excuses, and not assert leadership at the state level, why should Americans have confidence that the national leadership is going to be any better? You can only have the rule of law if you assert the rule of law. What kind of 'rule of law' do you hope to bring to Iran and Iraq, again? Americans have no credibility. They're not wiling to assert the rule of law in any branch of government or the state and local level. Utter hypocrisy.

    6. How badly do you want your Constitution

    Use this as a learning experience: Observe what the RNC has to divert its resources to contend with; and know that the "state=level proclamation for impeachment" gives the voters important information about where the state leadership stands on the rule of law: Are they willing to do what it takes, or are they willing to throw up their hands and do the opposite. The voters have seven months to review the results and find leaders who are more interested in the rule of law. Are you going to try to get people to do what they should – without you committing to the rule of law – or do you have to have a New Constitution that is going to make them do what should always be done: Find a way to assert the rule of law, not assent to tyranny for non-sense reasons.