We the People and Our Constitution Are Indistinguishable

Evaluating Congressional Leadership Maladministration

There is a way for We the People to change things. We the People through sheer numbers and experience can impose Our Will on those who defy their oath. We can use the government reaction to this approach and notice their weaknesses.

Our power rests with our authority to make things better. We don't have to get Congress to cooperate. They have no hope of dominance. Our Constitution is already our victory

When this government sees all that it might lose, and is confronted with the full force and might of We the People, their only hope is to retreat to the refuge in the Constitution.

* * *

Curious Links

Consider these, then I'll expand on them below:

Ref I've been reading some excellent ideas of things that Members of Congress should consider to force the President to respond.

Ref We agree there is a problem -- What is the plan?

Ref: Sample -- Reminding the DNC leadership their power base is not certain. It's happened once, and it can happen again. We the People can find new leaders.

Ref Let's have a "Public Disclosure of Oath of Office Compliance"-requirement. Something Voters need to have before the elections. Legislators who do not certify in writing their compliance; and provide full access to permit review get an automatic failing grade.

Ref Va. GOP Rep. Tom Davis doesn't get it: We the Peopel have provided feedback in the election and you're not listening. Not interested in "your" issues; when are you going to get instersted in "our issue" The Constitution?

Ref The "out of touch" problem isn't isolated to the President, but the US Govenment. This Congress has had the opportuntiy to show it's listening, but has failed. Funny how the Concgress spends all this time talking about "change," but they end off their statements with: "Now that I've rambled, this is what the people need to accept." Get real Congress: When you start listeing to us and putting your oath first, maybe we'll start lisstening to you wit your "Magic solutions."

Ref This Congress can focuse on solutions if it wants. Too bad they don't change the phrase form "Bipartisanship" to "Constitution First" Why can't the House "comt together" and decide to dare ask a qeustion: Are we willing ot make more excuse not to push back against the President?

"Stop complaining and start demanding that our republic works the way it is supposed to. We are a representative democracy and we must demand that our representatives begin to police their congressional bodies again and comport themselves as befits the leaders of our nation." -- Liberal Musician Ref

* * *

Comments

Put those aside for the moment, but keep them in the back of your mind. Here's my concern: The mandate of November 2006 appears to have run its course.

Congress has passed in 42 hours the legislation they wanted. Their jobs -- as measured by "their agenda" -- is, for the most part, substantially done. Whether the Members of Congress do or do not do anything between now and 2008 is meaningless. The battles before them are their problem; and when there is no mandate, and the President vetoes them, they're stuck.

We're back to where we were under the GOP.

* * *

Reconsider the the list. Let's consider what is happening:

1. The DNC knows it has not been able to do anything else other than what it has done in the 42 hours;

2. There have been hearings and reviews, but this hasn't put real pressure on the White House;

3. The DNC does not appear to be responsive to reasonable calls for them to try new things.

The above may or may not be true.

* * *

Let's pretend that the above is a subset of ideas driving the perception: "Nothing can be done." I disagree.

There is a way to make the Congress, GOP-DNC, and President irrelevant.

Think big picture. There are 300 Million of US; and only 536 of them -- 535 Members of Congress, and the President.

We outnumber them.

* * *

Also consider the other problem the DNC-GOP now jointly have: The non-sense propaganda, which We the People rejected November 2006, is being spewed around by both parties.

We have options:

1. We can independently create, develop, and implement a New Constitution and Second Government system which the Majority Of Americans will either reject or approve;

2.We can, as a test basis, develop a new system of governance, have it work in parallel with Congress, and show that the proposed model is either better or worse than the Proposed.

* * *

Two things need to be done:

1. Identify the problems with this GOP-DNC leadership and fix them;

2. Put into effect a system of oversight that is more credible than what the DNC-GOP have crated and implemented;

3. Implement this new form of government so that it is overwhelmingly obvious -- as measured by responsiveness and results -- that the new method of governance is superior, and more competent.

* * *

It's not that hard to do. The things going for We the People in doing this is our sheer numbers: We can easily choose to decide that a new focus is needed, and simply ignore Congress: As a Mass movement agree at all levels to assert a new standard of governance, embrace a system of interaction, and voluntarily agree to some inspiring principles; and then submit our system to independent oversight, reviews, and evaluations.

* * *

Let's call on Congress to step up to the plate:

___ Where's their plan to reform, and oversee what we present;

___ Does the President and US government have something on the table that they can offer as a plan to say "this is or isn't working"?

Until the leadership has a plan to oversee us -- which they don't have -- then We the People remain in the superior position: Able to not threaten anything, but do it.

* * *

Some have suggested they are frustrated with Congress. Let's think outside the box: We the People can identify a new system of interaction -- whatever that is less important -- and let Congress show it can do better.

The burden is on the President, Congress, and the political parties to do something better.

* * *

Consider the non-sense that we went through for the November 2006 election. In the run up we were encouraged to support "new candidates with new ideas for change." That was baloney.

Part of the frustration in American politics is the time people spend running around on behalf of candidates who betray them.

We can change that. We can, instead of "running around", make the Government "run around."

Let's stop talking about what frustrates us; and talk about a solution, then implement than solution as we go along.

People all over the blogosphere talk about how things "could be" -- well, let's quit talking about it, and just do it.

* * *

Again, I'm not advocating illegal activity, or something that is violent. Rather, something that is more subtle: Let's have a change of attitude.

If there's a problem, let's agree to fix it;

If there’s something that is frustrating, let's figure out how we can solve it; or at least talk about it and keep it on the table to discuss.

We may not have an answer right now; but there are 300Millino of us: Taking the average age of 35 years old, that's [300M x 35] 10, 000 Million or over 10 Billion years worth of experience and insight that we have compared with the [536 X 35] no more than 53,000 years of experience in Congress. [Very crude math I know]

On sheer numbers, using marginal education, and marginal attitude changes, our big numbers alone can easily solve this problem.

* * *

The attitude of Americans is simple: They can choose their attitude; and they can be inspired to reach great heights.

Americans are tired of getting manipulated, and used. What they really want, they want to lead, be great, and have their ideas put into effect.

They may not know what their ideas are right now; but they want a sense that someone is really listening to them, and can implement their ideas; and they don't want this non-sense we've got every day from DC: More of the "how are the People going to get used."

That's a load of non-sense.

* * *

Next time you're feeling blue, down on your luck, or annoyed that the Government isn't responding; Not to worry.

You are important. You are one of the people that is going to fix this mess. You're not alone. And the combined experience of We the People is orders of magnitude larger than what the American leadership is offering us.

It's time for We the People to agree that we can jointly cooperate to leverage our combined experience for something other than a party; but for ourselves. No baloney; no nonsense; and none of this ridiculous excuse for inaction and phony change.

* * *

Anyone with an idea can be a leader. We can share solutions; and we can test things out.

Members of Congress have a problem: They are busy making excuses; We the people can sit down, and review a problem, think about it, and -- though sheer volume -- impose the solution by sheer numbers alone.

Granted there needs to be a way to make sure this doesn't get non-sense momentum. I don't think that will happen.

Recall, the GOP doesn't have total control. They're on the defensive.

We the People have been betrayed by both the GOP and DNC leadership. We don’t' have to work within a party-controlled system; but we can have a faction of one -- each of you can be a faction.

* * *

There is a solution so this. The frustration of this DNC-GOP nonsense sends a clear signal: They have both lost the control of the Agenda.

We the People are a force they have to reckon with; and we cannot be manipulated forever. We will eventually find out.

The truth is Americans do not have to worry about the US government: It is finite; while We the People have the power, the overwhelming experience, and we can also work with other people around the globe -- if needed -- should this government attempt something nutty.

* * *

I would hope that as you continue with your work, earning a living, and spending time with your friends, or doing the things that you enjoy doing in your private time, that you can rest assured that there are people who you may never meet you share your frustration; but they aren't willing to play the games.

I would like to see the following:

___ People, when they are given an idea, to be receptive to it;

___ People, when they do have an idea, be willing to share it;

___ People, when they do have hope, keep the dream alive: We the People can do this. There is a way.

We may not agree, but we can share ideas of what can be done, and implement a new system of governance outside Congress; then let that way of interaction by example show the American government it has to change; or it will fall by the wayside.

This doesn't mean scrapping our founding principles; but building on what is working; and adjusting what is not. In the end, after our reviews, we may conclude that something need to change; and other things we may agree it is best to leave them alone.

I am confident that we the people-- with our 10 Billion years of experience -- can, if properly managed, harness our collective minds into something that is better.

The way forward isn't to impose the solution; but to let the power of We the People create that new system of interaction. The process isn't to find the solution; but to let the most effective means of organizing to guide We the People.

No, it doesn't mean that bad ideas are going to be imposed; or failed models embraced. The opposite: If something is more effective, then let's do it; and stop talking about what Congress should or shouldn’t do.

* * *

I'm not convinced, based on what I've seen, especially in the wake of the "promise of change," that the real power of we the People is getting tapped into. I see the opposite: The sham promise of change; and more of the same -- ignoring We the People.

The way forward is to notice what is really working; and simply do it; then let our results outshine the American government.

We don't have to change anything. We can be open to change; but change is not required. Change may be preferable; or it may not.

It's time to have an open mind: We don't have to work with this Congress, or this Government; we can remain loyal to this Constitution, but agree to interact differently.

* * *

I can't make a rule that is not one you do not want to embrace.

I can make a rule for me; whether you agree or don't agree with "my rule" is meaningless. Your rules for you work for you. Use the rules that work for you.

* * *

Things That Could be Better

When there is illegal activity, there can be punishment under the law.

When people take an oath to do something, but refuse, there can be public questions.

The leaders in the court system can be consulted for their ideas for what could be improved. Judges may wear a cloth, but they are smart people. We should consider looking for ways for them to share heir vision and what they would like to see, but without necessarily the threat of rebuke for their speaking their mind, or providing ideas of what they see could be improved.

The professional standards can be measured in terms of how effective are they in achieving the desired results.

* * *

I have a hard time convincing others that the American model is best when, by these results in Iraq, we have a problem: This system is not responsive to the rule of law. It could be.

The issue is: What would haven nipped this in the bud; then considering what has not changed, how do we ensure those lessons -- of what should or should not have happened with Iraq -- to be applied at all times.

* * *

The goal is not to impeach. The goal is to show that We the People, when it sees a wrong, can, in concert with the law, force a leader to assent to the same law each of We the People are held to account.

Our collection wisdom should be able to share the best ideas of what we think the problem is; and discuss solutions. We can study issues, and decide what the problem really is. The issue is: Despite this hope and promise of what We the People can offer with our 30 Billion years of experience, why do we have the results we have in Congress:

___ Promises of change

___ Excuses for illegal activity

___ Inaction to do what should be done.

* * *

My vote: We the People should make a third party of We the People. Nothing fancy, nothing complicated.

Perhaps we don’t have an "issue" -- we have on agenda: The Constitution. Nothing else. That's it.

* * *

Maybe that's what We the People may consider doing: Changing the American government by compelling "the issue" to always be first and foremost the Constitution. Until the Members of Congress put "the main issue first," then "their issue" is that they have a priority problem. That lack of clarity is one We the People can reject.

It is disappointing to realize that despite the oath, Members of Congress are making excuses to put their oath second.

We the People don’t have an oath: We have Our Constitution. It's ours. We don't take an oath to protect, defend, and preserve anything: That Constitution is the same as We the People. The two are indistinguishable.

An attack on the Constitution is an Attack on We the People. We don't need to respond; we may if we choose. We may choose to pretend to not notice, then lash out lawfully when least expected.

* * *

We only require people to take an oath because they are not We the People.

Oaths haven't worked. Rather, it is the mistaken belief that oaths were working that the American government has betrayed us.

We the People may lawfully reciprocate and betray the American government, and the leadership in the DNC and GOP.

We the People don't have to make a new party: We are We the People, indistinguishable from Our Constitution.

* * *

Lets just do it:

___ Gather the evidence of illegal activity;

___ Remind the people who defy Our Constitution that there is no statute of limitations for war crimes;

___ We the People have 30 Billion years of experience and may lawfully impose Our Will on anyone who defies Our Constitution.

___ The leadership in the DNC and GOP shall either assent to Our Will, or they shall be forced to explain themselves for their defiance of their oath.

___ Remind the "leadership" that they take an oath to the Constitution, something that is -- for purposes of government official's loyalty -- indistinguishable from We the People. We are more than the Constitution; they are less than the Constitution.

* * *

We the People

We the People don't have to do anything. We can if we want.

We the People may or may not have organized meetings. Organization may be useful to organize; but sometimes organization is stifling; where there is no organization, there is no definite group our opponents can target.

We the People are not required to act or not act. We may choose if we want to do nothing; react; or impose our Will.

We the People cannot be lobbied to assent to abuse. We may choose to be manipulated; but we can also choose to permit this abuse to inspire a solution.

We the People may find the benefits of the Capital Market system superior to all other models; or we may conclude that something needs to be adjusted.

We the People shall respect the rights of others; but when those rights are violated, there shall be timely, lawful consequences.

We the People have the power to treat US government officials as if they were no better or worse than an anonymous person; who may or may not be engaged in criminal behavior. We may lawfully, for purposes of oversight, shift the burden of proof to the US government; or use a scintilla of evidence as the basis to rebuke.

We the People shall agree with this Constitution; but that does not mean we cannot work with a new system of governance that might marginally perform better; then work to implement what works; then show that the new system outperforms the former.

* * *

The same leadership that promised change, is giving us the same excuses for not being leaders. It's March 2007. This leadership has known since November 2006 what was coming; and what was expected. It doesn’t matter what their excuses are. When lawfully pressed, they will do something.

We the People have the power. It is time to transition to a new system of governance that compels an assertion of that oath, and does not leave it to discretion; and create a system that works instead of betrays.

* * *

If you examine the excuses for not confronting the President, you'll see that they're logic errors, frivolous, and do not withstand scrutiny. They are more of the same nonsense We the People rebuked November 2006. We don't have to wait for an election to lawfully rebuke the same non-sense. We the People can throw this nonsense back: "Stop."

We the People need to consider the scope of nonsense this GOP and DNC are spewing forth not as a problem, but as feedback of what they must rely to avoid what they agreed to do: Protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution.

We the People can see this. The reasonable believe, which We the People had, was that things would change. And so they shall.

* * *

Let's hold this government, right now, not tomorrow, accountable.

___ Strict compliance with the Constitution;

___ Number one priority the Constitution;

___ No tolerance for non-sense from the DNC or GOP leadership; or the media;

Valid ideas go somewhere. Invalid ideas can inspire better ideas.

It's time for We the People to put aside our "partisan" differences; and accept: We already have what the DNC and GOP are losing: Power.

* * *

The momentum behind We the People is not passion, rage, or contempt. The momentum is the Rule of Law, prudence, and reason. Nothing more.

At the heart of our legal system is a simple thing: The rules of logic. Nothing else.

That which does not make sense n business, loses; that which defies prudence in combat, is destroyed; that which defies We the People cannot endure.

* * *

The problem the 536 leaders have is they are short on experience; and We the People outnumber them. We also have alot of experience: 10 Billion years -- that's just the wisdom that is available today; not to mention the other people around the globe; plus the journal articles and historical documents.

We have superior experience, a greater legal foundation, and more solid footing. And we can also discuss -- which Congress refuses -- the issue: This Government's defiance of Our Agenda: Our Constitution.

* * *

When they talk about Iraq, they are talking about an excuse and symptom; when they speak of agendas, they implicitly admit their agenda is not Our Will.

When they say that confronting reality is a "distraction" or "waste of time" they show they are the distraction and a waste of time.

We the People cannot be compelled; we can learn. When some attempt to block, We the People will find another way. There is a way to compel assent to the rule of law. All statements as to why this should not happen are frivolous. There is no choice.

* * *

You are one of We the People. You are delegated the power you need to lawfully assert the Constitution; and report back what you find.

Know Our Foe is not the Government, but the People in the Government who refuse to assent to Our Will, and defy their oath.

They cannot lawfully choose to assent to illegal warfare, but that is what they freely chose.

They cannot lawfully choose to defy their oath, but they prefer that.

They cannot lawfully choose to defy We the People, but that is their aim.

They cannot lawfully choose to permit truth to be hidden, or avoid accountability for what is impermissible.

* * *

The is your job: Lawfully assert power with confidence that you are one, able to tap into 30 Billion years of experience; that you are well supported by a simple thing -- logic. That is most powerful; it will prevail in combat; and it will prevail in debates and the legal profession.

Force does not change logic; people change minds, and permit one or many to assent to inferior logic.

* * *

Your job is to know the only power the GOP and DNC leadership have to continue their defiance of heir oath is to increase their absurdity; and put themselves in a less stable position.

Their position is not sustainable. They are inferior. We cannot be compelled to assent to inferior agendas. There is one agenda: The Constitution.

* * *

Your job is to learn what is possible; then share with others: How are the 536 attempting to defy Our Will. It shall be exposed. We the People can learn. We the People can make adverse inferences.

That which is blocked is less of a concern than in understanding that the intent to block is linked with their inferior position. They have no other option; we do. It is power beyond what they have been delegated.

The power we have is linked with two things: Logic, and non-logic. Unlike power which can only assent to the law; our Power stems from the full spectrum.

We the People are not required to meet a standard; we may act illogically, especially when that sends a wakeup call to the leadership: We the People have the power.

The US government officials shall assent to the standard of logic; but that is not a standard We the People shall agree to embrace, unless we choose.

This does not mean violate the law; but you have been delegated the power to share with the government personnel "other agendas" that they must content with; then force them to claim the most important agenda: The Constitution, as their function

* * *

That is what you must do. Stop trying to get them to embrace what they defy; but do the opposite: Bring your non-logical concerns to The government, and force them to assert, that they do not have time because their oath, and most important priority, is to the Constitution.

Then they will realize that they have freely chosen to say they have to do something; but their actions have been at odds with that.

Your job is to reach out to anyone you desire, and make contact. Be respectful, but move with the knowledge that you are connected to the Rule of law; and that there is a way to make the opponent scream for what they defy: The Constitution.

We the People have the power to lawfully wear down, grind down, and compel the 536 to grovel under the expansive weight of Our Will. We can literally run circles around them, and there is nothing they can do to stop us.

It is our job, when government refuses to do what t should, to remind the government -- right now -- they have a problem; We the People know; and we have options right now. Without warning. Just do it.

There is only one agenda: The Constitution. All other things are irrelevant. Compel this leadership to focus only on that with your questions, focus, and energy -- do that by exhausting them with "everything else." Their refuge will be their claim that they have "something important" to do. That's right: The Constitution. They need to really do it, not use the Constitution as an excuse to avoid what the President has already confronted: The Constitution.

We the People have the power to compel this Government to agree to one thing: The Constitution. They have no option but to agree to that agenda; any other agreement when superior to the Constitution is illegal. This Congress must be compelled to go on the record to explain and answer whether they are for or Against the Constitution, prudence, and accountability for war crimes. The illusion is that they have a choice; in truth, they fear this because they cannot explain why they have been against what they cannot legally oppose: We the People -- the Constitution.

They scream to pretend the issue is something else. Use that as a measure of their knowledge that they have lost, they know they have no credibility, and that the openly defy their oath. They have no excuses. They shall be lawfully destroyed by We the People easily -- by reminding them that they are irrelevant, and We the People can do what they refuse to do: Provide competent governance.

They wished this.

Read more . . .

Leadership Calling For Action and Oversight

Ref More could have been done. Rather than just tyring to penetrate the wall, perhaps the media may wish to explore what reforms to the US governance model are required.

* * *

Ref Some valid concerns were raised.

It's a good sign when industry begins challenging their peers to do more. Let's hope the calls are echoed in the legal community, in the Senior Executive Service, and Halls of Congress.

More than talk, but real results.

* * *

The reputation of the media is not stellar. BLogging took off, in part, because of the lack of confidence in the media.

It's one thing to have an aggressive media; or pretend that "more is needed." The other side of the coin is Congress, despite the Media, refuses to act on the infroatoin provided.

* * *

It was ossible for the public to have questioned the argumetns, and asked why teh claims should have been believed. This wasnot done.

Senator Clinton has argued she was deceived; in truth, she did not seek assistance to ask challenging questions or make adverse inferences.

* * *

Woodward and other may be right on what hsould have been done with Iraq WMD questions. The question is whether those lessons are applied now with Iran.

It is absurd to suggest that "round the clock headlines" are "hampering" investigative journalism. No, thejornalists are not getting the support they need to focus on what needs to get investiated. This is amangeme problem, not a technology program.

It may be true that it take time to develop a story; but the problem is when unsophisticated people can connect the dots in a timely manner.

* * *

Accoutnabity has been weak.

The US has a secret government under Cheney.

Woodward appears to be talking about the issues of power as if it were a speculative problem; the problem exists.

Read more . . .

SecDef Walter Reed Status Raises 5100.77 Issues For POWs

DoD Officer Abuse of US Military Personnel At Walter Reed Raise Questions About Like Treatment Against POWs in Violation of Geneva.

American military personnel have been abused for reporting truthful problems using procedures the public affairs personnel approved. The course of conduct raises some serious questions about the officer corps overseeing enlisted personnel.

* * *

Ref SASC Hearing, 6 Mar 2007

Ref Major General George W. Weightman, former Commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, subpoena [Waxman]

Ref Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman loses command of North Atlantic Regional Medical Command and Walter Reed hospital. [ 1 Mar 2007 ]

Ref Secretary of the Army Resigns. [Send him a subpoena]

Ref Rep. SLaughter calls for Kiley resignation

Ref: House Hearing: Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley has some explaining.

Ref US Army Surgeon General, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley photo; brings discredit upon himself and the United States Army. He should resign.

ref US Questionable treatment of prisoners.

Ref Why is evidence of incompetence being illegally classified in violation of ORCON requirements? [ Section 1.8: Inefficiency, incopmetence, adminisrative errors ]

Ref Army Times: Bad conditions, bad relalation

Ref Member of Congress concerns ignored; where is their Title 28 and/or Title 50 exception reporting?

Ref Hand picked -- to paint a rosy picture. What happens when the handpicked don't cooperate with the ruse: They get targeted. So much for "change".

The trends are disturbing. However, the lessons need to be applied to the 5100.77 Laws of War Program as they related to prisoner management. DoD's Attorney Stimson has reported that he's not interested in fully enforcing Geneva; and that counsel provide legal defense for non-charged prisoners should be retaliated against.

It would be appropriate for Congress to review the retaliation US DoD leaders are imposing on contractors, military personnel, and prisoners; and how these trends she light on the effectives of the 5100.77 program implementation.

translation: When you attempt to hide this problem, we can easily turn this issue into an alleged war crimes preliminary inquiry. Don’t mess with the troops or Geneva.

* * *

Secretary of Defense Gates,

During your confirmation hearings you were candid in your promise to cooperate with Congress. The Walter Reed Scandal shows that you are responsive to Congressional concerns.

However, it is important to review how this scandal came to light: Your troops were unable to get your military commanders to do their job. The public, media, and Members of Congress brought this to light.

* * *

The easy way to move forward is to rely on the communication your troops provide and solve problems. The hard way is what We the People are fully capable of dong: Independent audits. Your job as SecDef is to provide leadership.

People working for the Federal Government may have gag orders. But this does not apply to civilians who are able to enter your facility, and discuss issues with contractors.

The Uniform services also have inspector generals. The public is able to forward information through the IGS to NAVY NSCIS, ARMY CID< and Air Force OSI.

* * *

It is disturbing to read despite these many options to solve problems, your nostril commanders were not responsive. I don't care why. They are not doing their job.

The way forward is for the troops in your command -- including the officers -- to appear for inspection. If your offices at the Hospital are not going to appear for inspection, then this is a reckless leadership problem of the officers.

If the troops who are under their care have to have an inspection, Inspect your officers -- at all levels of the Hospital -- to also appear, conduct a pre-inspection visit with the officers, and conduct themselves with professionalism.

I also expect your Joint staff Commanders to make a random visit to the Hospital to visit the officers, and guide them how to conduct a military inspection.

Once the hospital staff have shown they can pass an inspection, then perhaps you can impose that inspection requirement on the enlisted.

* * *

When troops are in a hospital under your care, the are not to be harassed. However, if you are going to harass the troops, then you and your staff shall also appear for that inspection.

Time to start leading by example. If you troops want to have respect for you and the officers, then I expert the officers to show by example that the officer corps is willing to inspect the Hospital Administration; and the personnel assigned.

Then we can talk about harassing troops who have been put in harms way.

* * *

We the People also reserve the right to join any of the Inspector Generals; and may ask that Members of Congress join the IG teams. Title 28 and Title 50 are the means by which Members of Congress may personally visit and review whether the IGs are or are not doing their job. Members of Congress may, at their discretion, invite anyone they choose to provide them with assistance or support.

Translation: IF you want to punish people who are doing their job, then We the People can reciprocate: Stop playing games with the troops; do you job, and suck it up.

* * *

Your Sergeant Major at Walter Reed is setting a bad example. He should not whine to his troops about why he is or isn't doing his inspections. The troops don't need to hear it; and We the People could care less. Tell your Sergeant Major to stop bringing discredit upon their unit, leadership, and the Untied States armed services.

All personnel may directly communicate with Members of congress, the IG, and Senior Commanders. I epact your troops to get the support they need. If they have to go to the media, and your officers are not responsive, that is your problem. Your Sergeant major is in hot water. He can be redlined, and not given very nice assignments. Contractors assigned to the hospital – if the working conditions are not safe -- can also be rotated; and go on strike. You can blame this on your Sergeant Major.

* * *

It's a leadership problem when your Sergeant Major has to "tell" the troops to use the Chain of Command. People working in a hospital, when they are treated poorly, may not view their incompetent supervisors as being in any position to do anything.

I’d like to hear some straight comments what the personnel were told; and why they were not provided with a solution to the problems they well documented. This should not have required, which it did, outside review.

* * *

I would like your staff to explain why, despite allowable press access, suddenly that press access was a problem.

___ Where were the public affairs personnel?

___ Why are the troops, who were around public affairs personnel, being punished?

___ Was there a reason that troops were discussing issues with public affairs that your civilian and military leadership didn't know about?

I expect your troops to be given support. If you have public affairs personnel in the area, then the troops are reasonably expecting to be able to say what they want; if the commanders have concerns -- which they do now -- then the right answer was for your officers to have conducted a dry run, resolve issues, and ensure problems were taken care of in house. They were not.

* * *

It's good news that the first sergeant has been relieved of duty. The conditions there re despicable.

I would like to know why the officers assigned have not been relieved of their command. I expect some straight answers. This is nonsense. This is a stateside unit. No telling what kind of non-sense is going on overseas or at POW camps which shall comply with Geneva. Poor conditions for US troops in now excuses similar abusive treatment of POWs. If you need help, require equipment, or want assistance, then you need to speak out.

___ How many other hospitals are in the same condition?

___ Are reserve units unable to run a hospital?

* * *

Not acceptable that your Public affairs person is not responding to calls. We can make adverse inferences:

A. The personnel changes have been imbalanced. the Senior medical doctors and Administrative officers assigned have not been immediately removed as required;

B. the reports of abuse against enlisted troops are valid.

C. The public affairs personnel is not being responsive because they didn't correctly follow their procedures;

D. The officers assigned knew they should have been doing something -- inspections -- but didn't. This reflects poorly on the Officer training; and their apparent incompetence in failing to translate clearly promulgated legal requirements into policies, plans, and work schedules.

* * *

Overall, it appears your hospital isn't getting the required changes it needs There have been changes, but you're going after the wrong people: Those who correctly reported the information; and were told hey could provide information to the media.

If your officers do not want the public affairs personnel giving troops permission to talk, then you need to retrain your public affairs officers; or you need to replace them. Not appropriate to blame the troops who were correctly doing what the officers, by their recklessness, were not doing: Solving problems, answering questions, and reporting conditions.

* * *

As to the DOD "clam down" on medical facilities; This is too late.

I would like for you to provide the House and Senate Armed Services Committee a detailed list of all 3020 construction projects you have frozen; and all facilitate upgrade plans that have been put on hold.

Please identify in your report to Congress the following:

A. Descript summary reference page

B. Appropriation

C. Project Manager for that work effort; and DoD military liaison for the contracting effort

D. The size of the contracting amount

E. The name of the contractor

F. The status of any closed investigations by the IG or law enforcement into audit related issues

G. The progress, percent complete, and status of the schedule reviews your program managers have of these facility upgrade, maintenance, and operating funds.

H. Identify the expenditures on each facility, include the required funds to conduct operations; and include the percent expended as of today; and compare with the last three fiscal years showing:

[1] How much money as a percent of total expenditures is normally spent;

[2] The funds required to operate each facility using 100% manning; and 80% manning;

[3] Identify the date when, at current expenditure levels, the facilities will be shut down because of lack of O&M funds; or problems with the revolving funds.

* * *

Contrary to claims to the media that there are normally no comments during an inspection or an investigation, we'll make an exception.

I expect you and your Joist Staff inspect at the hospitals personally. If the troops are getting inspected at 6AM I expect a Flag Officer to attended and conduct that inspection of the facility. If there is n flag office, the inspections end.

I expect your Joint Staff Commanders to be involved in the Walter Reed Facility, not so much as an Army issue, but in understanding why an important facility stateside would fall into disrepair; and share with Congress the lessons learned:

[1] Which lessons, as extrapolated and applied to POW hospitals, need attention; and what is the compliance program to meet 5100.77 and Geneva

[2] What funding issues need to be highlighted they relate to combat zones;

[3] What is the status of morale, as you have seen it, as measured by Officer involvement with inspections, reviews, feedback, and informal workarounds with the troop-airman-sailor-marine of the day.

[4] Identify the funding provided to civilian contractors; and discuss offsets to the civilian contracts which can be used to plus up the known requirements in the existing active duty contracts.

Translation: Money has been stripped out of the Active duty, but the sots in the civilian contracts have gone up. There are ways to go to Congress, reprogram those funds, and request in the supplemental a recoloring of the money [OMNIBUS is premature in that the GOP didn't pass the FY07, and we're now working FY08]. Funds assigned to civilian contractors who have abused the public trust or committed fraud can be earmarked for these critical mission purposes. When contractors are part of the problem, those contract funds can raided; and Congress can appropriate funds through the reprogramming action.

* * *

Review

This is an opportunity to learn. The public needs to get a sense of whether your officers are or are not gong to do their job; or whether they have to be independently supervised by personnel outside their chain of command.

It is not appropriate for your public affairs personnel to be giving access to the media; but then punish the troops for responding to questions in the presence of public affairs personnel. The right answer was to have ensured the personnel assigned were responding to problems, which they were not; and ensuring your officers had the information first, they did not.

I do not care whether you or your commanders are embarrassed. They should be, but is irrelevant. This nonsense at a high profile faculty needs attention, not to mention the other facilities experiencing the same conditions. Flag Officers are expected to lead. If there are inspections, then your flag officers shall personally supervised the Field Grade officers in preparing for these inspections. When enlisted personnel are not given the example of leadership, they can reasonably expect that the Congress needs a direct call.

All Members of the Military may at any time directly contact the Inspect General. The IG has a job to do and I expect you to fully support them. If you are not willing to work with the Congress on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports as they related to military statues and reporting requirements, then we need to have a discussion about other legal issues.

I use this response as a test to evaluate how serious you and your commanders are with legal requirements. I could care less that the facility does or does have problems. The way this situation has been handled suggests that the 5100.77 program needs attention:

___ Scope of commander involvement;

___ No-notice audits

___ Proper chain of command reporting for war crimes; and whether the troops, left to their own, will know the proper steps if they, as was the hospital, not responsive to their truthful, solicited reports.

___ IG involvement

___ Use of administrative punishment to stifle reports of 5100.77 problems.

* * *

Once you submit your report, I expect you, as key 5100.77 point of contract, to show how the lessons of this hospital have or have not shed light on 5100.77 issues; and then you outline your plan to remedy those common problems:

A. Communication

B> Auditing

C. Oversight

D. Officer training

G. Inspection plans: Robustness, focus on key areas

H. Budget review adequacy: Problem areas, and get well plans with reprogramming

I. Reports to Congress: Completeness in re Title 28 and Title 50

J. Officer training: Example, inspections

K. Media relations ground rules between Public affairs, military personnel, unit officers, and media.

* * *

Your job as SecDef is to provide the leadership. If you allow your officers to abuse the enlisted personnel for truthful reports, it is more likely than not that US military personnel are abusing prisoners for like reports. This is A Geneva issue.

We need some straight answers. these are serious issues not only because of the human lives involved, but this course of conduct raises questions about the effectives of your implementation of the 5100.77 Laws of War program as it relates to prisoner detention, care, and management.

If there is n problem with the 5100.77 program, this is a freebie to apply the lesson and modernize the US military compliance program, and fully meet standards. However, if there are, as it appears, a problem with officer discipline in professional treating all people regardless their military, civilian, or prisoner of war status, then we have a separate issue to discuss: Alleged violations of the laws of war, and refusals to conduct audit to ensure requirements are fully met.

Read more . . .

Members of Congress Have Options To Compel President To Respond

The excuses from the DNC and GOP continue. The siren song of, "Oh, the President won't respond. . ." is getting old. Let's call this what it is: Members of congress Refuse to enforce the law.

Members of Congress should stop whining; until they stop, they're going to their political noses rubbed into the statutes they refuse to enforce. {Ref Title 28 and 50 exception reports [at the link] }

* * *

Look at this lazy Member of Congress:

Senator Ron Wyden, of Oregon, a Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, told me, “The Bush Administration has frequently failed to meet its legal obligation to keep the Intelligence Committee fully and currently informed. Time and again, the answer has been ‘Trust us.’ ” Wyden said, “It is hard for me to trust the Administration.”Ref

__ what are you going to do about it Wyden?

Here's what you can do for starters: Review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. Get your staff counsel off their rear end, have them issue you a summary of the options you and your DNC-GOP peers can implement to enforce Title 28 and Title 50.

You also have the IG and GAO who can help, along with the DOJ OPR.

Stop your whing. Fine, the President isn't cooperating. Outline your requirements, inform the public want ou need help with, and we'll get this President responding.

* * *

We've got subpoena power -- use it.

We've got the power to compel an impeachment with a State Proclamation with House Rule 603 -- this will tell your peers you're serious about going after the President.

You've got the State Prosecutors who can prosecute the President, yes a sitting President can be impeached: Here's the scholarly research.

You also have that the Title 50 and Title 28 exception reports which the Prudent needs to provided in writing, with the Attorney General.

* * **

Overall, I'm not impressed to hear this whining. You have legal options. Time to figure out which options that you have you're going to use.

Time to lead, Senator, or we'll find someone else who can read the case law and US Code. NOt that ahrd.

Read more . . .

Members of Congress Get Straight Scoop From US Troops

Republicans are making excuses not to face reality and avoid what needs to be confronted.

Talk about "more important" things is a GOP excuse not to face problems, something tne DNC is doing with impeachment . . .

* * *

Ref: GOP Propaganda; Nothing supports the contention that troop morale will be harmed if we talk about solutions in Iraq. From 82nd Airborne Captain, now a Member of Congress, heard some straight talk from the troops: Time to talk with Iran

Read more . . .

Impeachment: Will Washington Force Members of Congress, As Factions, To Clash?

Ref When the American leadership refuses to enforce the law, much less ask a question about illegal activity, we no longer have a republic. That is not an option.

The States using the impeachment proclamations are compelling this US government to clearly state: Whether they view their legal requirements as standards or as discretionary. It's called democracy under a republic, as guaranteed in Our Constitution: Our Will as imposed through lawful threat of force to preserve, protect, and defend.

Members of Congress and the media must decide whether they are serious in awakening to We the People:

We the People have the power to compel the US government to guarantee an enforcement mechanism.

We the People may make adverse inferences and find new leaders who fail to answer their oath, and are marginally more interested in the rule of law. Indeed, that is worth bothering with and well worth the clash of factions.

Fact Check: Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA] reported to have said there have been only 38 hearsing on Iraq, not 72 as this Seattle Times reports.

* * *

WA Hearing Links

Ref Report from hearing; DNC says "zero" chance will reach the WA Senate. Bill did not reach legislative cutoff deadline: Ref

Ref 1 Mar 07 Hearing [Thurs, 1 Mar 2007] ( h/t )

Ref Action: Petition you can pas to your friends encouraging WA legislature to support State Impeachment Proclamation.

Ref That VP CHeney might become Presien with impeachment is good to know: It means there's a concern that Impeachment might work. ALl the more reason to press forward: The evience is there; refusing to impeach would be reckless. Besides, there's nothig stopping CHeney from being impeached first, and the Senate blocking a replacement until BUsh is impeached. Then Pelosi would be President.

Ref Statement: CA ASSEMBLYMAN PAUL KORETZ 42nd District

Ref Mayory Rocky Anderson Testimony [Ref Comments

Ref Ref David P. Lindoff Testimony

Ref David Swanson Testimony

Ref Testimony: World Can't Wait

Ref SLC, Utah Mayor Anderson to testify Thursday, 1 Mar 07 at Washington State Legislative Hearing [ Michael Moore ]

Ref State Proclamations To Impeach: Status of the State Impeachment Proclamations under House Rule 603. [Read about other states]

- -

The Power of We the People: Measured by the Energy Used To Manipulate

Real power is when the GOP has to spend this much time and energy trying to Convince the DNC that it has no option. If there was "no option," then the GOP should be able to self-evidently let the "powerless" and "optionless" DNC flounder on its own without comment. Members of Congress, seeing themslves in this weakened state, are spending more time attempting to lobby We the People to not assert our power: Further evidence that Members of Congress know we the People have the power, and must be reckoned with.

It's important to notice the the DNC-GOP efforts to stifle action on impeachment: The issue is not what they are or are not doing; but the broad efforts they have jointly agreed to implement against We the People. This DNC-GOP combined effort is not leadership, or respresenative goverment, but unacceptable abuse of We the People. The Congress is putting their partisan agendas before their oath to the Constitution; then making exuses to absurdly justify their failre to put the Constitution, and its defense, first.

We dn't have to wait for an eelction; we canlawfully move to have these Members of Congress prosecuted. It is hardly defendable, in light of Title 28 and Title 50, for MEmbers of Cognress to block review and action on high crimes, war crimes, and other things which this leadership -- without a credible threat of impeachment -- are getting the green light to continue.

___ Propaganda, logic errors, cults: There is an option outside the DNC and GOP -- A New Third Party

- -

Actions v. Words: It's interesting to contrast what Members of Congress are saying about the imepachment effort; and contrast this with what they are really doing.

Ref Committee Budgets: If DNC was really "concerned" about this, they could pass the appropriations. This is a phony "concern" by the DNC; they control the process; and could put attention on this issue to resolve it. DNC could easily direct the Appropriations COmmittee to resolve the issue, issue a payment. The DNC CMmittee chairman are openly calling for something that they have themselves to blame.

Congress calls for checkpoints; and Bush threatens to block good ideas; Bush was against dialog until he was for it with Iran and Syria; the North Koreans well, they're not as evil.

Congress Lobbying We the People: Notice the Attempted Role Reveral

Members of Congress are being manipulated to not fully do their job; then attempting to put pressure on We the People to back down. Time for We the People to send a real rebuke: More proclamations; and a credible threat of new leadership outside both the GOP and DNC. The Members of Congress have it backwards. The error is for Congress to talk about Change, not respond to the Public; but then reverse roles and act as if Members of Congress were lobbyists on We the People.

Members of Congress have a real problem when they avoid forcing on the President; but put their energy into lobbying we the people: It shows they are powerless, fearful, and have got things upside down: The framers intended for the "experts" to focus on leadership; not spending their time -- as they are doing -- trying to dissuade we the people from implementing an oversight plan against Congress. All the more reason to expand the oversight, broaden the Pressure on Members of Congress; compel the Congress to focus on the ruses/excuses this President is attempting to distrait Member of Congress attention from the President's war crimes.

Ref Reconsider the Criteria to oversee congress; and the Impeachment issues: The excuses Congress gives to "not impeach" are frivolous. Notice the shift in the excuses since 2006-election time frame: GOP has shifted the focus from the President (defensive) to "issues" (smokescreens, distractions).

___ An oversight system requires examining real data to determine whether the oversight plan is or isn't' working. How Can Members of Congress credibly argue they have [1] a "Presidential Oversight System"; or that there has been a [2] test of that oversight plan unless there is fact finding, reviews, and an understanding of what we are facing? [ Ref ]

Abusive Cult: Threats and Abuse of President Will Continue Unless Challenged, Ended

Ref The President threatens people to get them to do or not do things; then leaves people with the mess regardless their choice, and blames them for their "bad choice."

Irrelevant Excuse: Middle East

Ref All the nonsense about the" concerns with the middle east" are meaningless: US shows it can sit down with Syria and Iran on issues. The DNC can also do the same on impeachment -- reverse positing, confront and face acts. No reason to put "all the energy" into something that isn't make or break.

US GOP-White House-DoD saying that war is going to end in Oct 2008. Ref OK: Then DNC doesn't need to "spend time" attempt to "end" domsehting that is supposedlygoing to end. They can spend time on what will lawfully end ths Presidency: Impeachment.

Ref DNC excuses to do nothing on impeachment contradict reality in Iraq: Joint staff says six months until US will either get it right, or spiral into Vietnam-like disaster. It would be appropriate for the DNC "opposition" to accountaity face reality in Iraq: There's no reason to block impeachment when the Joint Staff, and Iraq time line are moving. It's not an either-or approach [no credible basis to say that "we can't have impeachment proclamations unless we have an end to war in Iraq." That's a non-sense argument; we can have both, working in parallel. It's appropriate to keep the Pressure on, test the DNC leadership, and evaluate whether they are or are not being responsive.

Ref Governors are "concerned" about President's bungling in Iraq; but refuse to seriously consider legal options to lawfully punish the President. How stupid is that of the Governors. When Federal Government stops telling We the People and states how do do things, we'll stop telling DC How to do things. The US government has been a distraction when it comes to the US Constitution.

- -

Quantum Focus Doctrine: Bush Distraction Doctrine

Using Focus on One As An argument Against Focus On Another; Pretending that blocked focon on one means that the DNC will continue going after what is blocked; [Can't, shouldn't; then changes to "focus on what is blocked" to argue the reverse: "don't have the time to focus on the other." The opposite is true: If POTUS will not let Congress review Iraq, then there's nothing stopping focus on impeachment.]

GOP Propaganda To Stifle Action: Notice the Convoluted Logic:

- Distract: What is blocked is desirable;

- Block: What is needed must be blocked;

- Excuse: What is blocked is a distraction;

- Discredit: The distraction is a priority from what is needed.

Ref Public needs to remind House: The President is attempting to take both sides of the argument on oversight: [1] Say that Congress can't do something (oversee); then saying [2] Oversight will be a distraction. It's impossible for something that isn't happening to be a distraction. House should take the President's charge at face value: "If you won't let us do our job,then we will do our job on impeachment." Once the President says that "impeachment can't be considered", then there's no reason for Congress not to review Iraq -- there's no distraction of Iraq if Iraq can't be discussed. [President' is pointing to each situation [Iraq and Impeachment; saying people can't do something with the other] as a distraction from him.

Republicans Are Making Excuses to Keep Evidence out of Court, stifle review, and not cooperate with oversight or fact finding. The Goal of the GOP is to pretend that all DNC action will be a threat to the DNC [Orwell: "Leadership is defeat"; Cheney: Defeat is leadership"]; and that all DNC progress is bad [Owellian: "Progress is defeat"; Cheney:"Defeat is progress"]; and all audits/reviews cannot be done [illusory benefits of ignorance "Ignorance is strength"]: That should be the debate: What explanation does the GOP plan to share as to their concern with having focus on the issues?

- -

Notice the Common Pattern: Pretending On Going Abuse Will End if No Action

Ref Pattern of speculative threats to dissuade inquiry: Comparing the threats against the EU [not to investigate rendition, or lose support] with the effort in Pakistan [to respond to phony threats of Member of Congress funding cuts]. Threats are the subsequent lines of evidndence of the GOP concern with fact finding. We have the same result [When they are enabled, they will continued to abuse; if they are not stopped and examined, they threaten to abuse]; there's nothing to suggest the abuse is going to stop unless we confront the President; threats of more abuse [what is already happening] isn't a credible reason to stop, or take another option -- the consequence is not contingent upon or action or inaction on impeachment.

Flawed GOP Positions

Ref Contrast the GOP action in NM (running away from hearing) with that in Washington State. Looks as though the GOP response to the impeachment proclamations is related to their 2008 election goals: Induce DNC to block progress and debate when GOP position is strong; cut and run when the GOP opposition would backfire, or the locals are GOP is fearful any association with the President will backfire. [Analyzing the GOP response to the impeachment proclamation as a proxy for what they view as vulnerable; how can their arguments be turned on their head; and what do their arguments tell us abort what they fear, and what can be publicly discredited.]

Ref Senate Republican Leader Mike Hewitt appears to be retarded, claiming this is "good news." Sure: If it was "good news," the GOP would have done this a long time ago. The US Federal Government has failed. The States may lawfully request Congress to investiate. Hewitt doesn't appear to be able to read: House Rule 603 Permits a proclamation. Washington isn't impeaching, just passing a resolution. This is proof Republicans are stupid.

Ref DNC talking points to slow roll impeachment proclamation. Using same excuses of distraction that RNC is using to protect the President; Compare to the lessons from Vermont

Ref: It started with one blog, and won't end until the President is lawfully removed from office. There are fifty states; Ref The President can be impeached fifty [ 50 ] times. If the senate refuses to lawfully remove him from office for the crimes, then the GOP will have given up their claim to be called competent. We the People expect change, not excuses to block what is needed: Accountability.

Ref Indicators of a backlash against Both DNC and GOP; their party emerging on American landscape. Both DNC and GOP leadership are in a no-win situation in refusing to confront the President.

* * *

Danny Westneat,

Thank you for your coverage in the Seattle Times of the House Rule 603 Resolution. I agree with you that impeachment is a corrosive effect: It should be. It forces the factions to clash.

This American government with the enabling media has refused to do its job: Face reality.

It can hardly be said that reviewing evidence of war crimes is a bad thing. It might inspire some support for the American government among the insurgency: "Wow, those lazy Americans are finally doing what we've been trying to do -- hold them accountable."

* * *

Combat is serious business. You either win, or you may lose your life. America is limping along, pretending its government is functioning, but oblivious to the feedback of combat: Things need to change. There have been war crimes. The way forward is to fix what is broken.

* * *

What other Members of Congress may or may not fear about impeachment is irrelevant. This Congress, despite "winning" the Voter Mandate, refuses to force the President t account with impeachment. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have much to be concerned with: The American public realizes the choice is not between the absurdity of the DNC: or the war crimes of the GOP.

The choice is between the rule of law, or a New Constitution that shall, through lawful threat of force, impose the rule of law.

* * *

It cannot be said that we have no choice. The choice is simple: Whether we will face what is happening; or whether we will force the government, with a New Constitution to face it.

Some have suggested that a conflict will produce bad results. This implies that the conflict is unreasonable; or for a bad purpose.

The lazy Congressional leadership has avoided what the Framers intended: A clash of factions.

Indeed, some who recklessly wasted time on what they call "trivial legal issues" may think that to assert the rule of law is dangerous. Indeed, there will be a loser.

* * *

The conflict between the Constitution was one this President illegally started. How American citizens, seeing this Congress react or not react, choose to assert themselves and run for office is secondary.

Even if there is a setback for one party's agenda, the turnover in Congress will eventually get things right. Or so we thought.

* * *

The American media has been complicit with this recklessness. Rather than reporting on the illegality, they’ve cowered in the corner pretending they were the messenger of truth. No, they provided us with excuses for inaction.

It is meaningless to say that because someone opposed one "trivial legal issue" that that all other legal issues are trivial or should be opposed.

* * *

Contrary to speculation that impeachment "might" paralyze Congress, this Congress is paralyzed. There is no impeachment. Yet.

Impeachment, as the states propose it, will compel the House to vote -- up or down -- whether they do or do not want to investigate. That is the first test. If the DNC chooses to refuse to investigate, there will be more bills. There are fifty states. There are potentially fifty rounds of impeachment.

* * *

This Congress is wasting time. There are war crimes. The impeachment will force the House to throw the Senate into disarray, and then compel them to be silent as they hear the evidence.

If the Senators refuse to remove, another impeachment may start it again; with more calls for Senators to be prosecuted for having not prevented war crimes. The evidence is overwhelming. The issue before is if the GOP Senators refuse to remove the President, then the GOP will, in all likelihood, be lawfully destroyed at the ballot box. There is nothing in the Constitution which makes permanent a particular party; nor is there a mandate to compel We the People to assent to dysfunctional government. To ask such, would have us believe the Iraqis are entitled to more competent leadership in Iraq than the US government can provide at home. Absurd. The GOP leadership knows this. They are concerned. They know they must rely on sense to win; that strategy failed November 2006. They have not changed, but block accountability. Not to mention the DNC.

If impeachment will “not happen,” then let Members of Congress choose, on the record, to do nothing. Then there will be no debate of what they might have done; the issue is what we will do.

* * *

American citizens, military, and children have seen enough. The evidence is clear. The voters rejected this President, this leadership, and this recklessness.

The error is for the DNC to refuse to confront this President. The state proclamations force the DNC to assert their oath. If they are not serious, then they -- as with the GOP poodles in the Senate -- cannot be sure they will remain in office, much less retain power. Ever.

There are alternatives.

* * *

We the people have the power. We the people woke up. We the People sent a clear signal in November 2006: We support fact finding, reasonable plans, and change. Change can only be credible if we know where we are, how we got here, and what needs to be done. Change means keeping all the options on the table. Then providing leadership.

Sadly, this leadership must be told what to do; and how to do its job. If they refuse to listen, we will find new people who are willing to respond to We the People. Change isn't a single mandate to talk about change once, but ignore We the People, or the requirement to explore the basis for change. real change means changing: Listening to We the People on a daily, if not hourly basis -- where do we stand; what feedback do we have.

Real leaders would use their leadership to lead; not delegate that responsibly to We the People. The proclamations do not demand removal; but if the evidence is as high as it appears, there is no credible basis to defend this President.

The voters, regardless their party loyalty will have the chance to see whether their state and federal leaders are or are not serous about asserting their oath. Refusing to face reality is hardly prudent. Enlightened people can reasonably expected enlightened leaders: Ones how lead on the back of facts, not denial.

It is appropriate to force the Congress to show whether it does "bother" with the Constitution. They have no choice; and may be legally prosecuted for having failed to defend what cannot fall into disrepair. Assent to lawlessness is not permitted, but has been illegally permitted.

* * *

It is an error to say that the President is all powerful, or he is above the law. It is also incorrect to say that people who want accountability are against America.

American combat troops need leadership. They also need to know their orders are lawful.

The DOJ Staff is concerned. They privately worry they could be convinced for war crimes.

Never confuse being "For the Constitution" with being against America. That is a fatal error of the media.

* * *

Regardless whether the House chooses to investigate or not, the question is whether We the People will support or oppose this Congress. The voters are in support of accountability. The facts will lead us where we find them.

It is absurd to suggest that fact finding will force the voters to support the President. A needed inquiry is neutral. If it is unfair, then shame on those who unfairly do their job.

It is circular to argue we benefit by avoiding reality. If the war is just and lawful, then this man will be vindicated; if the war should be supported, then this President has nothing to fear. The facts will be on his side.

However, if the evidence shows the war was illegal; or that the facts are not on his side, it can hardly be argued that determining that fact is a bad thing. It is required.

We cannot prospectively say that something is or isn't worth doing, when it is mandatory: To find the truth, then decide what must be done, if anything. Asserting, without facts or any inquiry, that nothing should be done is circular.

War will end when America is forced to confront reality: we will either do what is required to win; or we will accept we are not willing to accept our defeat. The GOP is not willing to accept its complicity.

Whether the President did or did not lie is secondary than whether he has no has not committed crimes warranting removal. The place to start is where we are: Starting, reviewing, and examining what should be done.

* * *

It has been the lazy Congress, unruffled by We the People, which has assented to this illegal warfare. The Founders expected factions to clash.

The "needs of the DNC or GOP" are secondary to their requirement to clash, find facts, and have this showdown this President illegally started. It has been the refusal of the Members of Congress to clash that has enabled this President.

* * *

If Congress, despite the lessons of Nixon, Jackson, and Clinton spirals into a mess, then let that mess be one We the People openly see, and resolve to clean up.

There is nothing to fear if we examine what is going on, and resolve to fix it.

Speculative fears of "how this might be like something else" is meaningless. This President, unlike the honorable, waged illegal warfare; this Congress has treated the Constitution as if it were meaningless. They miscalculated.

* * *

War is not the national agenda. The agenda is the Constitution. Indeed, if there has been 72 oversight hearings, but not challenged, we can hardly argue that holding hearings is sufficient.

It's time to couch the information in terms of evidence: Is there, or is there not, a basis to charge the President with a crime?

This Congress refuses to consider the question. The states have the power to make them confront that issue: Is there, or is there not, a basis to charge the leadership with a crime; and what should be done to punish those who have?

This isn’t just about the President, but all other Constitutional officers in all parties: Have they or have they not fully asserted their oath.

Fact Check: Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA] reported to have said that there have been 38 hearings on Iraq, not 72 as Seattle Post reports.

* * *

Iraq is a separate issue. The question isn't whether the President should or should not be overseen -- he shall be -- or whether he should or should not change course -- he must -- but whether this President should or should not remain in office.

Some suggest its "only two more years" as an excuse to do nothing. The correct approach is the opposite: Until this Congress chooses not to remove this President, We the People shall compel the Congress to clash, find facts, and explain themselves to We the People: Who are they to say "not to bother" -- refuse to ask a question of criminal activity, not to mention removing them from office -- when the question will not get asked: What is the basis for them to say "it's not worth it"? Without inquiry, that excuse for inaction is meaningless, frivolous, and an embarrassment to those who offer it.

* * *

The problem isn't just the President’s war crimes, but the complicity Members of Congress hoping to thwart We the People from examining the real question: Who didn't do their job when they should have to end this illegal abuse of power earlier?

The results are bad for the GOP and DNC. Not for We the People. Reckless leaders, enabled by toady parties, must be lawfully removed from the political stage. The error is to suggest the incompetent are the only choice we have; or that the choice is between unacceptable choices.

Competence is possible. It is linked with fact finding, and developing a plan to move forward. Things are changeable. One can make a difference.

* * *

The very fact that the DNC don't want this is the very reason to make it happen: And force the DNC to confront what they see as an "acceptable" excuse not to find facts.

That which the GOP and DNC jointly agree must be avoided is meaningless. This President has confronted it: The Constitution. The question is who and what will dare protect the Constitution.

Not the Congress or the Media. But the States and We the People.

* * *

The Congress has stonewalled on the war. That impeachment "might be a new issue" isn't going to interfere with anything: Congress has chosen to embrace war crimes as a "justified" excuse to interfere with their oath.

* * *

Some suggest there is going to be a partisan battle if there is impeachment. Fine. What took so long?

Let the factions clash. Let the leadership show whether they are serious about facing reality. If the DNC leadership is, as they said on the even of the November 2006 election, the "right leader," then let them rise to the occasion, lead, and fully assert their oath.

Stop talking about change. Protect the Document with the required clash of factions.

It is fear mongering of the poodles in the DNC and GOP when they say that things might get locked down. That lockdown is with us, not speculative, and has illegally been permitted to continue putting all American Constructional protections behind this abuse of power. That is an impressible deterioration of the document and defies the oath of office.

<* * *

The assertion of the rule of law by We the People is Our Mandate through the Constitution. This Congress refuses to do their jobs.

We the People deserve this. The President has chosen to defy his oath, and this Congress refuses to honor its commitments. They have chosen poorly.

Free people sent a clear signal in November: We do not support the DNC over the GOP; we support sending new signals that things will change, regardless who our champions are.

Let the DNC and GOP spiral or rise as they choose. The problem for We the People is if the DNC and GOP agree to hide their disagreement, and leave Our Constitution unprotected. That is impermissible.

* * *

It is the test of combat and political confrontation that forces the best to succeed; and the losers to surrender. America has ignored this lesson, permitting the losing President to abuse, while destroying the best. This shall end.

It is arrogant for any Members of Congress to argue what is or is not "important." That is not debatable: It is the Constitution.

To suggest that "something else" is important misses the focus and binding requirement of the oath of office.

* * *?

It is non-sense to pretend that asserting the rule of law is something about feelings. It is about one thing: We the People asserting raw power to compel the Congress to protect the Constitution. All other things -- including the oath -- have not inspired this Congress to do what they promised, before God, that they would do: Protect the Constitution.

This Constitution is what we have. There is no other option, other than the New Constitution. It is ready.

We cannot end what is debatable; we can debate what should end.

* * *

The error is to equate a challenge with a loss. The factions shall either rise or fall as they choose to act. We the People will be able to observe form the sidelines: Who do we want to lead: Leaders, or poodles?

This leadership makes excuses to avoid reality; and not have the needed factional clash. That is not leadership but denial.

Some might suggest that facing reality might cripple an Institution: IF so, let the Constitution guide us to repair what is self-evidently lame: A reckless US government.

* *

We the People are not required to debate or justify. The debate was resolved in 1789: We have but one Constitution.

Congress, if it will not face this issue, should not be permitted to face any other issue: Will they or will they not face the Constitution, and the threats to that document.

It is frivolous fear mongering to talk about what might happen when the certain things have not been examined, as required. Certain illegality has not been sufficient to cripple this Congress; surely facing the reality of that crippled institution is nothing to fear. It might inspire some to believe that change is possible, not something that is prattled as a slogan then discarded like a lame mule.

* * *

Americans will get the chance to see whether their leaders are or are not competent; and whether the media is or is not willing to face facts.

It is mockingly amusing -- ironic -- for the media to call for silence on issue of facts. Perhaps the media has an explanation why they do not want to "bother" facing reality: Is this Government willing to face facts or not? The media doesn’t think its prudent. No wonder the media is seen less than relevant, and more as what needs to be lawfully transformed.

* * *

It is less important what the leaders claim to know, that what the people have been deprived from knowing: Whether this leadership will or will not, when forced, do its job.

We the People have the right to demand, and require, Members of Congress to commit to whether they are for or against fact finding and accountability.

We the People owe our Constitution to the sacrifice of or Founders and the leaders since 1789. It was the clash of factions, even during the civil war, which compelled the leadership to confront what cannot stand; and stand by what would prevail in those confrontations. As the Northern Armies marched, Congress debated.

Surely this Congress can discuss.

There is no doubt the American public supports change and fact finding: We voted for it. If the DNC and GOP leadership make an error, We the People have the time to find new leaders. If not now, then soon; if not by this election, the next one.

It's time to start and ask the question: What kind of leaders do we really want; and what does it take to get them to do what we want? We the People have learned it takes too much work to do what is right; and there are not enough barriers to prevent what is wrong.

American leaders will have to make their case each day that they deserve support. Fortunately, the Founders required elections every 2, 4, and 6 years. There is nothing to fear if we dare to face the truth. The problem is when, as the media has asked us to incorrectly believe, that We the People should give up.

No, the media should give up its illegal rebellion; the media should withdraw its support for the insurrection; and the media should be reminded who the are responsible to: We the People -- the shareholders in America -- the ones who have the power. Markets can be made or destroyed in minutes. Lives linked with capital can be turned upside down in seconds.

* * *

The media will have to decide how long they are willing to go, as they illegally did with the Iraq WMD issues, to incite illegal warfare, or drown the voices of We the People.

We have been through a great challenge. This government unsuccessfully attempted to beat Americans into silence at the RNC Demonstrations; the GOP lawyers failed.

The American government attempted t hide the truth about WMD and continue illegal warfare. We the People voted and could not be silenced. Rove and the President failed.

Now it is Congress' turn: Will they, or will they not attempt to do what the President, Senate, and GOP have failed -- to silence Americans and compel them to think one way or the other.

* * *

Danny Westneat, it is arrogant for you as a columnist for the Seattle Times to pretend that the "way forward" is to not find out; and permit the Congress to lazily pretend they can get away with more nonsense. It was only when We the People forced this media and government to account that we go the real answers; then we made informed decisions.

"Don’t bother" isn't the right answer. That's pathetic. Danny Westneat, why do you bother doing your job as a professional reporter if you're thinking "Not finding out" is the "right answer"? You're not being clear or consistent.

___ How do you argue that your job is to communicate, when you advocate not finding out what is material information?

___ Who are you, as a member of the media supposedly bringing us information to we can make informed decisions, calling for We the People to put up with "not bothering" to find out?

Our Constitution is based on the clash of factions; and the idea of an adversarial system of debate and justice. If the truth is there has been no crime, then let the DNC blame the Voters for "daring" to make the DNC do its job.

Nobody is saying the DNC, without evidence, should do something that is reckless. They are required to do something that is required: Hold the leadership to account for war crimes, and confront facts.

Danny Westneat, it is irresponsible for you, especially as a member of the "media" to call for people to put up with not finding out the truth.

___ Which facts are you deciding we should "not confront"?

___ Without confronting the facts, much less raise the question of the potential legal problem, who is the media to suggest that they are part of the process to support Americans?

___ In the absence of facts, what is the basis for you to argue that "not finding facts" is the more optimal choice?

You have no credibility in your argument; or if you are serious, you are not credible in your profession. This is alone for you to cure.

We the People are busy at work. We do not have time to do your job. But it is absurd rubbish, Danny Westneat, for you to suggest that you should be paid to report in the media; but you openly advocate not finding facts. That does not reconcile.

___ How do you explain your hypocrisy?

___ Why should we the people bother with the likes of Danny Westneat when they say that we should "not bother' finding out?

* * *

The issue before is whether the nation will or will not face reality. That is change. Up until now, the poodles in the media have been complicit with denying reality, suppressing facts, and pretending war crimes were something of another era.

___ How can the media credibly argue, in the absence of facts, that a line of questioning is or isn't appropriate?

That is absurd. We can only know whether the confrontation is or is not reasonable when the President, media, GOP, Senate, and American public decide: Who do we want to be our leaders?

The Voters through the states have denied the President, Senate, and GOP an input. The power is with we the People and the States to delegate to the House.

We may permit the House to do something, knowing it will reject what is required; this forms the needed catalyst to replace it with something that submit to Our Will, not the irresponsible will of "don't bother looking at that".



* * *

Leaders don't point to secondary agendas as primary;

Leaders don’t talk about democracy, but tell We the People to go away;

Leaders don't preach about the benefits of the rule of law, but remain complicit with illegal warfare;

Leaders don’t preach about the benefits of an informed citizenry, but then say that citizenry should be denied the truth.

We can't argue to the Iraqis that democracy is great, so long as it isn't practiced. We the People shall be informed; or make adverse inferences about those who attempt to thwart informed decision making.

"Don't bother" isn’t an argument. It's not a position. It's un-American. It's disgustingly lazy. Hardly something that will inspire leadership, confidence, or faith.

* * *

The rude reality for the DNC will be "What really happened"?

___ How did we the people make our decision?

___ What did we know?

___ What did We the People dare to face, and make adverse inferences?

___ Did We the People learn something new, unknown to the DNC, and are waiting to spring that upon the media?

* * *

The way forward is to trust your media training, Danny Westneat. When the citizenry is informed, we can make adverse inferences whether the leaders are or are not suitable for office.

Rather than avoid the issues, the needed push back against this President’s illegal confrontation, is a measure of whether the leaders, not just we the People, are serious about the rule of law. There is no choice.

The rule of law isn't an idea. It is a notion that reason prevail. It applies in combat. Those who refuse to face reality, and poorly plan, are defeated.

When the US government ignores the rule of law, but wages reckless, illegal warfare, the laws of war permit retaliation. Anything this US government has illegally permitted, other nations may legally do to the United States. That is an unacceptable descent into barbarism which the American leadership has impermissibly allowed.

These are not separate issue of law or combat, but connected to the same principle: Prudence.

The question isn't whether the media or Congress will confront the issues; but, if they refuse, what will foreign fighters have the lawful right to do?

They may engage in like abuses f the laws of war. That is hardly something not to be "bothered with." If this Congress chooses to "not bother" with war crimes, other nations may legally -- as this Congress has illegally done -- retaliate for illegal violations of Geneva.

___ Members of the Media, alleged complicity with war crimes, can be abused in secret without prospect of a public trial.

There are not sufficient combat forces to defend all Americans. The United Sates if militarily vulnerable. We've seen the problem in Louisiana, Iraq, Afghanistan, and with 9-11. Yet, in 2007, in a weakened state, and facing an enemy that is legally justified in committing abuses, the Congress would have us believe "not bathing" is they way to go.

No. The way forward is to face the illegal activity; resolve the punish the wrong doers; and make it clear to foreign fighters: We are committed to fully enforcing Geneva. Whether the enemy chooses to ignore or not is irrelevant; anything that they do which is an illegal violation -- based on fact finding -- is the basis for the world to tilt away from the insurgents to We the People.

Surely, the world would support what is prudent, especially if it could discredit the weak. Not America. It has power, but abuses it; and once had moral authority, but squandered it. It's appropriate for We the People to bother because this reckless leadership has not.

Iran may legally engage in support for the Insurgency in Iraq. Whether they are or are not doing so is secondary to the right, they have, under Geneva, to lawfully oppose the US war of aggression. No one in the media can credibly argue that America’s enemies are in the wrong, when the real enemies -- the arrogant, lazy, and stupid Members of Congress and the media -- refuse to do what Geneva requires: Bothering.

* * *

Specifics

But enough of generalities, Danny Westneat. Let's get specific with your excuses not to do your job.

___ Who cares about what Clinton did or didn't do?

___ Why is that relevant on a separate case with war crimes?

No answer. These are distractions and irrelevant to the 2007 issue confronting this Congress: The Constitution.

* * *

___ Why should anyone care if Congress remains paralyzed during impeachment?

We're not getting anything but excuses; more paralysis is evidence the Congress and media refuse to adjust to reality. Put this paralysis on the political stage and let We the People see it for what it is -- reckless contempt for their oath; and evidence they are unfit for office. They've started a defeated 2008 campaign; and their opponents only need argue, "I won't be stupid like this leadership.” That’s good news for We the People.

We can find new leaders, and people in the media who aren't as marginally obnoxious as people working for the Seattle Times who say, "Don't bother" when it comes to fact finding, oversight, and finding the truth. This Congress, if it requires more defeats on the battlefield, is well positioned to endure the same. The people getting killed are your neighbors. That's why you should bother.

* * *

It is incorrect to link the [a] action on Impeachment with [b] the position of the war. The two are separate. We the People, as demonstrated with the November 2006 election, are able to distinguish the two. War is not the same as a legal showdown in Congress. If the media has to be lectured to, then go to Iraq where you can get an earful: Arrogant leaders and lazy members of the media get to learn the hard way what happens when people "don’t bother" to face reality: The enemy is inspired to prevail, and expand combat. That is folly.

* * *

Your article, Danny Westneat, doesn't do much to give a reason why "not knowing" is a good thing. It is of little interest that someone in the Legislature is afraid of reality. Their problem is that they are afraid of their future: Accountability.

We the People have been told, not asked, by the American media, Danny Westneat, to put up with claptrap about WMD; then given non-sense why we should "not bother" with illegal warfare.

It is foolish for Inslee to direct, as a cause-effect relationship, the idea that [a] finding facts; and [b] making a decision about the President; is going to [c] "Help" the President. If that were true -- that "accountability" is good -- then the GOP was doing what didn't help: Avoiding accountability.

Inslee has a major problem. He's been cited in your column, and he's used non-sense logic to make the case that a needed action -- which has not been done -- would be good if avoided; but he can't explain why this "good thing for the President" wasn't fully asserted by the GOP.

That is the problem with Inslee, and your column. You have accepted as true the absurd argument which, when examined -- as you say we should "not bother" doing -- shows the absurdity.

Inslee's argument is non-sense, as is our mindless repetition of that argument. You could have challenged it or rebuked it. Perhaps you have a plausible reason not included in your column. It is a GOP ruse and DNC fear tactic to pretend that WE the People -- informed to make decisions --are going to get it wrong. Informed voters got it right November 2006. No, when the GOP lied, we voted to endorse what should have been rejected. We learned the hard way.

* * *

The next problem is for Inslee to argue that "things that the GOP didn't do" -- engage in oversight -- will be good; then pretend that the "needed things which the GOP didn't do" will be good; and that all things bad will happen.

Utterly non-sense arguments, especially when suggesting that "Activists" are doing something in response. No, it's "We the People." We're voters. We're the people who buy your newspaper and cancel subscriptions.

* * *

The issue isn't whether the president did or didn't violate he law. The issue is whether this US government will or will not examine the question. Answer the question on the record; and we the People shall make judgments.

It should not take this long, and this much effort, for the US Congress -- with this much evidence of illegal activity, misadministration, and incompetence -- to fully protect the Constitution.

Hostility is needed. Confrontation is required. The clash of factions will answer one thing: Did this President meet or not meet his oath of office requirements. The error is for the media and Members of Congress to, despite not asking that question, to say that we are better off if we didn't bother asking the question.

No, the right answer is: If they refuse to do their jobs, why should we bother supporting either the DNC or the GOP?

A new party can be created to trump both the DNC and GOP; and a New Constitution can be crated to compel what this media and Congress says is good to "not bother" doing -- protecting the Constitution. Oaths haven't worked. We the People need to find out what a solution is; it can only start if we dare to focus on the facts, have an open debate, and compel -- on the Records -- the Members of Congress, all 535 of them -- to vote [a] where to they stand on the rule of law; and [b] what level of evidence and reality is required to awaken them to their legal obligations they freely assented to with their oath.

It is absurd that it takes, above and beyond the lazy media that says "don’t bother" for We the People to have to do the work of congress; rally the nation; and direct leadership. Members of Congress freely took an oath to provide the leadership and set the agenda. They refuse.

Our Agenda: The Constitution -- is the document by which We the People delegate that power to the Members of Congress to do their job. They reuse. The way forward is to find out what is really going on, and how do we adjust:

A. Do we delegate more or less power to the States;

B. What is the remedy to prevent this abuse of power from recurring; and

C. Who is or is not getting in the way of what is needed?

The majority of Americans want to find out reality – they voted November 2006 to lead based on reality, not myth. If the truth says that things are fine, fine; that may be evidence that someone isn’t doing their job and blocking an investigation.

* * *

Bring on the hostile GOP. Make them really scream without thinking. God knows when their rage reveals their stupidity. If they won't get on the elevators together, fine: That's their choice. Let We the People ride the elevators while the DNC and GOP leadership refuse to put aside their differences and focus on the Constitution.

If they say their political agenda is more important than the Constitution, then they are not important. We the People can find someone marginally more interested in the Constitution to do their job.

* * *

Let the world see the dysfunctional mess this media has not reported; the nonsense this Congress has permitted.

There is nothing to fear if, given more information, We the People make a decision to lawfully transition to a New Constitution, and something that is marginally more responsive than this mess which enables war crimes.

Oaths of office, when they do not mean anything, no longer become a credible basis to believe that the US leaders are going to do their job. The important issue is whether this country will dare to ask the questions; how we answer those questions is secondary.

___ Why is the media afraid of reality?

___ What is the "good or bad thing" that is going to happen if the President is forced to account?

___ Have the DNC claims about the President -- which supplied carried the DNC to power -- been proven untrue?

All the more reason to find out: Was the election of November 2006 about change, or about repeating more on-sense on the back of illusions. The media's response: "Don’t' bother." What a load of non-sense.

* * *

Saying something is "obviously" more important is speculative. We the People get to decide what is important. If the Congress refuses to confront the President and focus on what We the People deem is important -- The Constitution -- then the issue changes form priorities, to whether the Congress can be trusted to establishing the priorities.

* * *

Some suggest we've had 72 hearings on Iraq; and the President, GOP, and Senate refuse to allow progress or adjustment. This is illusory. Nothing can stop the House, except the House. The President, GOP, and Senate are powerless to prevent the House from withholding funds for illegal warfare. That's not oversight, but more stonewalling.

Contrary to bills which the GOP, Senate, and President can block, and impeachment is something the President, Senate, and GOP have no input: It is an issue of power. No voters by the GOP is going to block this. It's up to the House and the DNC:

___ Are they, are they mot going to face reality.

___ How much misadministration is required?

___ Why should Americans accept "put up with having a bad employee for two years"?

___ Has the promise of change meant real change, or more excuses?

After the test we can better evaluate who talks about change, and who provides leadership.

If any American were to act this way on their job, they would be fired. This President is no different. He's a clerk. His only power is Article II power: Execute. Read it again -- singular, not plural: He has only one power: To enforce the laws, and see that they are faithfully discharged.

This clerk can't/wont'/refuses to do that simple job.

There are 300 Million Americans who know show to follow rules: This President is not among them. Hardly anyone can claim that the Voters are going to look favorably on this President. He’s a contemptible creature of the Constitution, unworthy of respect, and brings discredit upon himself.

* * *

Inslees "big plan" to vote on the war is meaningless. Let the DNC leadership dare to blame we the People for returning to this President what he started.

That blame shall be thrown back at the DNC and GOP with a fierce rebuke, and new calls for more alternatives: Real parties, New Constitutions, and other ways of organizing the American government.

We are loyal only to the Constitution, not to excuses to "not bother" fixing what remains broken but unexamined.

This Constitution is the agenda now, not later. There is no time to "get around, maybe later" to the Constitution. This Iraq war is a symptom of the illusions before Congress.

If Inslee, despite his oath, is willing to spiral into partisanship on impeachment, then let the voters decide if they want to have them as his leader. No need for the media to screen out information related to Inslees' unprofessionalism. Let the other Members of congress tempt fate if they recklessly conduct themselves when failing to assert their oath. It remains to be seen, and is a speculative threat: Irrelevant and without force. Inslee is going to have to work for the votes.

We the People do not workforce the President, Congress, media, but most of all the clowns like Inslee.

Let's watch:

___ Does Inslee let "impeachment" guide his conduct?

___ Despite his oath, does Inslee freely choose to act in an unprofessional manner?

___ Despite his Constitutional duties as a Member of Congress, does Inslee -- or anyone -- dare to speak on the record and be contemptible before We the People?

Fine. We the People may choose to vote him out of office; or leave him there as a play toy. He is a buffoon.

* * *

Isnlee and Danny Westneat are full of hot air. They claim to be on the side of the public, but they show their true colors: When they claim they want to find facts and contribute, there they are -- making excuses not to bother; getting caught up in distractions; and failing to confront the real problem driving the symptoms of Iraq: This President.

It should not take this much effort to compel the US government to do what it promised: To provide the states with an enforcement mechanism. We the People woke up before November 2006. The DNC and GOP, along with the media, is still asleep: We the People have the power; and if the US government leadership -- in either party -- refuses to face reality or ask the question, We the People can find new leadership, for new parities, and enact a New Constitution.

Why? Because we can, and the rule of law is more than something that is "worth it." It's worth bothering with: There's no alternative. This leadership cannot be trusted to end anything that is illegal until it is forced to accept that it has no option but confront it.

The media, GOP, Congress, and President are powerless to stop We the People.

They wished this.

Read more . . .