I have to strike a balance in my life between short term and long term goals. I must work to make money but what good is it if George Bush destroys the world as we know it. I do not want to end up living in a cave, remembering the good old days when we had electricity and the Internet.
When I think about what we need for long term survival, Bush is doing the opposite on almost every issue. He is making enemies when we need more friends. He is raping the planet while we need solutions to global warming and dwindling fossil fuels. He is lying to the American people when we need an honest government that faces our problems directly and leads us in the right direction. We can't wait for him to steal the next election.
We need to Impeach George Bush now.
More information here: http://www.impeachbush.tv/
Democracy is the goal. We are not there yet. Together, perhaps, we can learn to govern ourselves.
Posts
10 comments:
Foolish liberals. Bush will not be impeached and you cannot present one single shred of evidence to justify doing so. You will be propped up by the liberal media and possible get one looney Democrat to try drafting articles, but it will get nowhere. You ignorant liberals hate truth and fact and replace it instead with conspiracy, fanaticism, and outright lies. It is truly humorous to watch liberalism implode. Keep up the good work, watching people like you make fools of themselves is entertaining.
local dogcatcher is better than having Bush and President Cheney
No the "Downing Street Memo" is a lie because it was obtained from a third hand source and may very well be fake. The reporter who has propagated this document now claims it is a typed copy of the original. Sure it is. You have no real evidence, only accusations and insinuation. As for me, I am not a Republican. I am not represented by the self-serving politicians in Congress. You hate Bush because he has a perspective different from your own. In your small, close-minded world you hate all who dare not to share your ideaology. Bush is not a criminal. If anyone could prove otherwise it would have been over long ago. The Democrats continue to marginalize themselves by allowing the party to be hijacked by the extreme left. The Republicans won't do the things that need to be done to make this country stronger, safer, and better, but the Dems won't either so quit your dreaming. Clinton was a failure, Carter was a failure. You have to go all the way back to Truman to find a good Democratic President. I would say Kennedy, but he was short-lived. I do think he could have been good enough to overcome his "extra curricular" activities. Anyway, the fact is there are no politicians in the two party system left that I could honestly call a leader with principle. Right now it is the Republican Party that is the lesser of two evils. That will not change until the moderate Dems win back their party and bring sanity back to the once great party.
HI, I think the times are changing, more people are getting fed up with the lies, and hopefully that will lead to more of the truth coming out.
My blog NoBu**SH**zone is pretty much dedicated to the fight for peace, truth and justice -in other words-impeaching Bush. I mostly have petition links and links to important information. THANKS!
onemillionreasons.org be sure to sign it OK?
Monday, August 29, 2005
President Bush Is Guilty!
As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, is he not guilty of the following Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
ART. 131. PERJURY
Any person subject to this chapter who in a judicial proceeding or in a course of justice willfully and corruptly--
(1) upon a lawful oath or in a form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, gives any false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty or perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, subscribes any false statement material to the issue or matter of inquiry;
is guilty of perjury and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct
ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 134 - (Homicide, negligent)
Elements.
(1) That a certain person is dead;
(2) That this death resulted from the act or failure to act of the accused;
(3) That the killing by the accused was unlawful;
(4) That the act or failure to act of the accused which caused the death amounted to simple negligence; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Explanation.
(1) Nature of offense. Negligent homicide is any unlawful homicide which is the result of simple negligence. An intent to kill or injure is not required.
(2) Simple negligence. Simple negligence is the absence of due care, that is, an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care of the safety of others which a reasonably careful person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. Simple negligence is a lesser degree of carelessness than culpable negligence. See paragraph 44c(2)(a).
Lesser included offenses. None
Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.
Article 119—Manslaughter
Text.
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, without an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being—
(1) by culpable negligence; or
(2) while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense, other than those named in clause (4) of section 918 of this title (article 118), directly affecting the person; is guilty of involuntary man-slaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Elements.
(1) Voluntary manslaughter.
(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;
(c) That the killing was unlawful; and
(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon the person killed.
(2) Involuntary manslaughter.
(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;
(c) That the killing was unlawful; and
(d) That this act or omission of the accused constituted culpable negligence, or occurred while the accused was perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense directly affecting the person other than burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson.
Explanation.
(1) Voluntary manslaughter.
(a) Nature of offense. An unlawful killing, although done with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, is not murder but voluntary manslaughter if committed in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation. Heat of passion may result from fear or rage. A person may be provoked to such an extent that in the heat of sudden passion caused by the provocation, although not in necessary defense of life or to prevent bodily harm, a fatal blow may be struck before self-control has returned. Although adequate provocation does not excuse the homicide, it does preclude conviction of murder.
(b) Nature of provocation. The provocation must be adequate to excite uncontrollable passion in a reasonable person, and the act of killing must be committed under and because of the passion. How-ever, the provocation must not be sought or induced as an excuse for killing or doing harm. If, judged by the standard of a reasonable person, sufficient cooling time elapses between the provocation and the killing, the offense is murder, even if the accused’s passion persists. Examples of acts which may, depending on the circumstances, constitute adequate provocation are the unlawful infliction of great bodily harm, unlawful imprisonment, and the sight by one spouse of an act of adultery committed by the other spouse. Insulting or abusive words or gestures, a slight blow with the hand or fist, and trespass or other injury to property are not, standing alone, adequate provocation.
(2) Involuntary manslaughter.
(a) Culpable negligence.
(i) Nature of culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is a degree of carelessness greater than simple negligence. It is a negligent act or omission accompanied by a culpable disregard for the foresee-able consequences to others of that act or omission. Thus, the basis of a charge of involuntary manslaughter may be a negligent act or omission which, whe viewed in the light of human experience, might foreseeably result in the death of another, even though death would not necessarily be a natural and probable consequence of the act or omission. Acts which may amount to culpable negligence include negligently conducting target practice so that the bullets go in the direction of an inhabited house within range; pointing a pistol in jest at another and pulling the trigger, believing, but without taking reasonable precautions to ascertain, that it would not be dangerous; and carelessly leaving poisons or dangerous drugs where they may endanger life.
(ii) Legal duty required. When there is no legal duty to act there can be no neglect. Thus, when a stranger makes no effort to save a drowning person, or a person allows a beggar to freeze or starve to death, no crime is committed.
(b) Offense directly affecting the person. An “offense directly affecting the person” means one affecting some particular person as distinguished from an offense affecting society in general. Among offenses directly affecting the person are the various types of assault, battery, false imprisonment, voluntary engagement in an affray, and maiming.
Lesser included offenses.
(1) Voluntary manslaughter.
(a) Article 119—involuntary manslaughter
(b) Article 128—assault; assault consummated by a battery; aggravated assault
(c) Article 134—assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter
(d) Article 134—negligent homicide
(e) Article 80—attempts
(2) Involuntary manslaughter.
(a) Article 128—assault; assault consummated by a battery
(b) Article 134—negligent homicide
Maximum punishment.
(1) Voluntary manslaughter. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 15 years.
(2) Involuntary manslaughter. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 10 years.
Awesome post, just found your site after reading your comments on Randi's message board.
Here is another page that discusses HR635, so if you have not seen the Forum that was on CSPAN, you can watch it there.
http://www.SixThreeFive.com
Thanks and great work! I am so glad that other people know about this Resolution, so many do not.
THE DIVIDE
WITH US, THE U.S.;
IS THE DIVIDE
WITHIN OURSELVES!
BETWEEN OUR
PRIMITIVE AND EMOTIONAL
SELVES (uninspired)
IN WHICH WE USE TOWARDS AND IN RESPONSE TO OUR FEARS AND ANXIETIES.
VERSES OUR
INTELLECTUAL AND RATIONAL
SELVES(inspired)
IN SWHICH WE USE TOWARDS AN IN RESPONSE TO OUR HOPES AND ASPIRATIONS.
the better angles, in my opinion, must prevail!
our world, (being lead by us;)
has the choice, to lead with moral authority or by thuggery.(look at our own psychologies) remember,
we have been divided here. no one is stupid here, just,not being sincere and forthright with one another.
we must stop the bully within!
we must show ourselves that there is a better world!
a liberal mind, when "mugged" by reality, would never give into the bullies army, just get back up, and find another ray of hope!
For what is the next after and also within the building of the impeachment, you are welcome to the Citizen's Constitution at http://our-constitution.wikidot.com
It is not a spam. It is serious. Please visit. You can change!
Thanks
SHOULD WE IMPEACH CLINTON, AND 77% OF CONGRESS AS WELL?
Bill Clinton’s Speech from Dec. 16th, 1988
PRESIDENT CLINTON: "Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq..."
Source:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html
Joe Brignoli
joeybrignoli@aol.com
In response to the comment about Clinton. Yes, in the 90's Saddam had WMD. But these were destroyed by the UN. That is why Clinton was so interested in working with the UN. By the time Bush took power the WMD had already been destroyed. The UN inspectors reentered Iraq and found no evidence of WMD. But Bush ignored the UN inspectors and the UN Security Council and invaded Iraq anyway. Now we have been occupying that country for 4 years. Why?
Post a Comment