America's Spiraling Credibility

Wake up America. The DNC and GOP are at it again. They're pretending they're for or against something; but if their own party members do it, it's for a good reason. What a load.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

-Thomas Jefferson, March 17, 1814. RefRef ( h/t )

America's religion: Excuses to put partisan agendas before the requirement to assert the oath to check power, protect rights, prevent the abuse of power, and protect the US Constution from domestic enemies in political parties.

* * *

Consider the following three lines:

(1) Inaction: Credit or Discredit Upon Congress

It brings discredit upon the House for failing to take action non negligence. CREW calls the inaction a violation of the House rules; yet the DNC calls for inaction on impeachment. Same issue with inaction, different parties, same results: Defiance of the law, and excuses not to assert/enforce the oath of office.

(2) Inaction or Action Selectively Good or Bad

Pretending that the GOP is going to regret something for not taking action, then arguing the opposite on the same issue with the DNC; and not seeing that the DNC may regret having not done what it should have done on Presidential crimes, and malfeasance by Members of Congress.

(3) Asserting Criminal Justice Issues Are Politics

Notice the double standard. Arguing for inaction for partisan gain, then taking the opposite view when the other party takes another view. Ref. Asserting a legal matter is a partisan issue is the tip of the iceberg on the flawed GOP legal arguments Ref

* * *

Discussion: Member of Congress, Oath of Office, negligence, and malfeasance

The inconsistencies are noteworthy. The DNC cannot credibly point to the GOP negligence in re Foley, while arguing for inaction on impeachment. Similarly, the DNC cannot celebrate inaction on impeachment, but claim the GOP is going to rue the day they chose to do nothing on ethics.

The House rules require the Members of the House to bring credit upon the House. If there's a rule that the DNC wants to say the GOP can or cannot meet, then the DNC should be held to that same rule.

If the DNC is claiming that the public, seeing the GOP inaction on ethics issues, brought the 2006 gains for the DNC, the DNC cannot credibly argue that DNC inaction will do the opposite: Bring gains for the DNC.

___ Why will inaction by the GOP on an issue be a good thing for the DNC; but inaction by the DNC on similar issues is a "go0d thing" for the DNC?

Inaction, if it was related to GOP defeat, could be related to the DNC defeat. DNC defeat does not mean GOP gain; it can mean a third party gains. The choice is not between GOP inaction and DNC inaction; but between the Constitution and a New Constitution.

___ How can inaction by the GOP be good; but the DNC point to inaction as a positive for the DNC?

The DNC absurdly is asking for two standards on whether inaction is good or bad.

___ If there is no review of the evidence related to impeachable offenses, what basis is there for anyone in Congress to argue that they are better suited, as President, to implement the reforms needed to ensure the Bush 43 abuses do not continue or recur?

There is no basis for anyone in Congress to argue they are better suited to take control of the White House when they are part of a system that has double standards on accountability.

* * *

A New Direction

Change means changing, not creating absurd excuses to repeat the GOP excuses: Putting partisan goals before the duty to protect the Constitution.

We the People have not always had a choice between two ineffectual parties; there were other options. New options can be created. They may not prevail soon, but the current GOP-DNC non-sense is the needed catalyst to choose another route.

Just as with Iraq, the choice is not between the ISG-approach, or the President’s bungling. There is another option: Lawfully remove from office the person who refuses to permit Iraq to assert its sovereignty, and who fails to comprehend We the People, not the President, is the source of all power.

* * *

Iraq, the Constitution, and US Government

The way forward is to consider the recommendations of the ISG, not as an either-or proposition: The Choice is not between the current path and the ISG-approach. Rather, the larger issue becomes: Regardless what path is taken, does the US have the standing and moral authority to assert power lawfully? No, America no longer has the political or military power to impose its will, even as it is stuck in the defeat it finds itself in Iraq.

By refusing to hold Members of Congress and the President accountable to standards of conduct, regardless the plan implemented in Iraq, the problem is the US has no credible leadership based on standards, merely assertions of legality.

Agreeing to do nothing, regardless political party, is a recipe for more of the same. Until the American population connects the failures in Iraq with the Member of Congress inaction on House Rules violations, the American public will have the same snake of tyranny: Congressional assent to abuse, and pretending that the rules cannot be asserted out of fear of public backlash.

We the People can learn more; whether the US Government chooses to assert the rule of law is another matter. We have options. Inaction cannot be celebrated by some, and rewarded to others.

Those who pretend that we can know in advance whether impeachment is or isn't warranted have failed to comprehended there is more to be understood. It may be warranted, and remains a lawful tool on the table, regardless what one Member of Congress may believe.

We the People have the power to compel Congress to face this issue. As with Foley, if the DNC chooses to ignore an issue that warrants attention, there's a reasonable case to be made that neither the DNC nor the GOP remain fit to govern, much less take the lead in 2008 from the White House.

* * *

Avoiding What May Be Required

"We won't be like them" is a meaningless promise: The DNC is doing exactly what the GOP has done -- put partisan agendas before the oath of office. Calling for inaction on impeachment is no different than the GOP call for inaction non Foley.

Congress should not start an investigation with a decision to do nothing if impeachment is warranted. It is irrelevant what the DNC leadership does or do not want. if the facts support impeachment, but there is no action, why support the DNC leadership.

Impeachment is a power of House not DNC or Senate

The DNC does not have the power of impeachment; that power belongs to the House. The DNC legislative agenda, as did the GOP agenda, cannot trump the oath of office. The DNC is doing the same as the GOP: Putting their partisan agendas before their oath of office and their duties under the Constitution.

Impeachment is a power of the House; whether the President will or will not be removed is irrelevant. The power of impeachment can be multiply applied. To say that the impeachment can only be used if there is a guaranteed conviction gives the Senate an illegal vote over the House. We the People did not grant the Senate the power to prevent the House from impeaching.

What the Senate leadership says about impeachment is irrelevant. The Power of impeachment is delegated only to the House, not the Speaker or the Majority leader in the Senate.

Oath as The Supreme Agenda

Asserting the oath of office is the number one requirement. That a legislative agenda may or may not be compromised is speculative and more of the GOP-Kool Aid.

Why is inaction on asserting the rule of law something that should take second seat to something else; and why will asserting the rule of law necessarily mean that other political agendas are thwarted? This makes no sense.

Law Unrelated to Public Opinion

The Rule of Law, not the mass of anarchists, sets the way forward. Evidence can sway the public to change their view, but the law cannot lawfully be changed retroactively. The public may not support impeachment because they do not see the evidence. The public has no direct vote on impeachment. More evidence may swing more support for impeachment.

The DNC and GOP are both unpopular, and the arrogant double talk on whether standards are or are not going to be enforced brings discredit upon the United States.

It is premature to remove the options from the table, or suggest that asserting the law may be counter productive to one’s political agenda. This argument fails to make the case that the DNC is any different than the GOP-NeoCon’s similar assertion.

Combat Implications: Sovereignty

Choosing not to pursue impeachment does little to send a message to any foreign fighter that the US is responsive to the rule of law. Could inaction on the Presidential crimes incite foreign fighters? You bet, just as NATO was inspired to act after the Yugoslavian government chose to immunize itself for illegal activity. Same thing in the US: other nations can lawfully do the same as NATO did in Yugoslavia.

Other Options To Failed US Government

Inaction by Congress is irrelevant: We the People decide whether we want to support or reject the US government's malfeasance; and a collective vote not to assert the law is irrelevant. The Constitution, if it is going to mean anything, must be enforced, not explained away.

* * *

If you’re going to argue that impeachment is or isn't needed -- with any certainty -- or that it is not required, then you have to admit that your support for inaction may precipitate the very thing you hope to avoid.

The same non-sense arguments suggesting why impeachment should not be asserted are meaningless when stacked against reasons why other issues cannot happen. Specifically, between 2006 and 2008 many things can happen:

___ Foreign invasion to replace the US government

___ A civil intervention to prosecute Members of Congress and President for illegal activity, malfeasance, and defiance of oath

___ A New Constitution

___ State led efforts to disbar, prosecute, and decertify US government officials who refused to assert their oath, enforce the law, or do what they have the legal duty to do

___ Grand jury indictments against Members of Congress, the President, or other civil officers for inactions, maladministration, or other conduct which fails to meet the 5 USC 3331 obligations

___ Lawfully targeting for prosecution leaders who advocate illegal war

___ More proclamations for impeachment by state legislatures and assembly directed at the President, Members of Congress, and civil officers who refuse to assert their oath

___ Continued attacks by foreign fighters against the continental United States

___ A military draft

___ Sustained loss of support for the US government resulting in its collapse

___ A civil war in the United States

___ A revolution in the US against the failed US government that refuses to assert the rule of law

___ A military coup in the United States


* * *

The same forces prepared to put their lives on the line to defend the US Constitution against the NeoCons are equally willing to put themselves between the DNC apologists and their excuses not to protect what they refuse to respect: The Constitution.

As with George Orwell’s Animal Farm, there is little separating the DNC and GOP in their excuses. Their common agendas are joint distractions from their highest duty to the US Constitution; and both have jointly agreed to put their partisan goals before their legal obligations.

The threat to the US Constitution can either be active destruction, or passive inaction – the same results are illegal. The GOP arrogance is equally matched by the DNC malfeasance. America’s problem is that both parties have a vested interest in putting political agendas over the oath and the legal requirements to assert the rule of law.

If you would prefer to not put your oath before your agenda, then you remain a lawful target for grand jury indictments, prosecution; and if you suggest that you have the power to repeat what the GOP-NeoCons have just done, then you are no different than the opponent you have supposedly defeated.

You remain a threat to the US Constitution. If you force a decision between you and the US Constitution, rest assured, the choice will always be the US Constitution over you, even if it means lawfully destroying you through on your preferred forum.

You have no combat forces that can lawfully assert something other than the rule of law; nor do you have the legal foundation to lawfully compel a free citizenry to follow you on your plan to put the US Constitution behind your political ambitions.

Legally and military you have no power to compel anything higher than the US Constitution. For that, you remain a threat to the document and the lawful opponent that may be legally destroyed on any forum you choose: the battlefield, the courtroom, or at the voting booth.

The choice is not between the DNC or GOP excuses for absurdity. The way forward is to decide whether you will protect this Constitution, or a New One. If you choose your party before the Constitution, you are the lawful enemy of We the People.

You shall be lawfully destroyed. You wished this. It has started. The Constitution is eternal, you are finite.

* * *

Summation

Legitimacy is linked with written law, not excuses putting other agendas before the Supreme Law. If We the People refuse to see the collective deception of the GOP-DNC partisans, We the People are doomed to be manipulated as we were in the wake of Sept 2001.

The US government has been defeated. It no longer has credibility. It has ignored the laws of war, retroactively asserted the laws do not apply and cannot be enforced, then collectively asserted that malfeasance should not be examined. There is no credible basis for any leader in either the DNC or the GOP to assert they have a way forward; they have yet to comprehend how they have contributed to this unprecedented disaster: The abrogation of the US Constitution; the defeat of the American military; and the refusal of We the People to hold both parties accountable for their defiance of the rule of law and their oaths.

In every country and in every age, the government and party have priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." [ Original: Jefferson]

A lawful check on this abusive American government, despite it suffering legal and military defeats, remains lawful invasion by foreign fighters intent to compel the US government to assent to the rule of law. That standard was the basis for NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. It remains a matter of time, not will, before the same results are lawfully imposed on the US government.

Foreign fighters, as was done in Yugoslavia, may lawfully invade the US. The Senior Executive Service, regardless party affiliation, cannot credibly compel We the People to rush to the defense of the US government that has defied its oath.

The way forward is to accept that the DNC is not serious about checking power; it is serious about gaining power, even if it means assenting to illegal war crimes by this President. The DNC has collectively shown it has more in common with the GOP than with the US Constitution.

This mess is your mess. Foreign fighters may choose to lawfully invade and compel the Staff Counsel and other contractors supporting this rogue US government to assent to the rule of law, this US Government has no moral or legal authority to compel We the People to rush to prop up what is no longer legitimate.

If you choose to pretend that this is a partisan issue, you hare misinformed. The United States is isolated. It not longer has the legal or political power to assert policies under this President, nor continue asserting the use of power.

If the District of Columbia is attacked, and Congressional Staff Members and members of congress are lawfully targeted by foreign fighters, you have brought this on yourselves. You have put yourselves above the law, not asserted your oaths, and collectively pretended that war crimes by this President are not serious matters.

Once the American leadership chooses to defy the law and not protect the Constitution, you are on your own and may not lawfully compel others to defend what is illegitimate, illegal, and at the source of war crimes. It is illegal for any American to compel others to remain silent on war crimes, or compel or induce others not to fully assert their oath of office through impeachment.

US citizens have a reasonable basis to question the legality of the DNC and GOP leadership positions and assertions; and question whether there are not other reasons for their joint refusal not to assert the rule of law. If American citizens choose to take up arms and defend a system that is no longer legitimate, you have given up your protected civilian status and become lawful military targets.

It remains for the War Crimes Tribunals to review what illegal agreements there exist between the RNC and DNC leadership not to assert the rule of law, and compel manipulated citizens to defend an illegitimate system which praises barbarism and lack of accountability over the oath to the Supreme Law.

There is no reason any American should run to the defense of the District of Columbia. The enemy of the US Constitution remains the collective arrogance of the DNC and GOP members to assert partisan objectives before their supreme oath to the US Constitution. There is no reason to defend a US Government that actively works to undermine the document, then proffer excuses justifying its destruction. We the People never delegated them the power to do this. Despite Our Will through the vote in November 2006, the DNC shows every intention of continuing the GOP non-sense: Putting partisan politics before their Supreme Duty to the Supreme Law.