Many Libertarians are jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Ron Paul is a sitting member of Congress with the power to introduce impeachment resolutions. Why has he not done so, and
when is he going to do it? Since the spineless Democrats are predictably selling out the voters who gave them control of both houses of Congress to stop the war, and the LP is mostly MIA on this as well (having voted against impeachment, and having failed to even consider a real antiwar resolution at the Portland convention), perhaps someone will do the right thing?
Co-Dependent Congress Must Wake Up: The President Needs a Straight-Jacket and a Padded Cell
from: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
It’s time to simply admit the obvious: The president of the United States is crazy as a loon, and the Congress and the media are functioning as co-dependents as he runs the country off a cliff.
Bush says in his latest press conference that he is “certain” that Iran is providing “technically
sophisticated” roadside bomb weapons to Iraqi insurgent forces to help them to kill Americans.He probably is “certain.” But nobody else of consequence in the government is, and the evidence to support his claim is simply not there.
Shaped charges are not sophisticated. They can be made in a garage. The technology was invented in 1888 by a Navy engineer. It was widely used in World War I and II, as well as in Vietnam, and was even provided by the British to the IRA in a botched sting operation that led to its being disseminated around the world to every conceivable resistance and terror organization. Instructions on how to make these weapons are available on the web. A high school student could do it in shop if the teacher wasn’t looking.
On top of that, the people who are primarily responsible for killing Americans in Iraq are Sunnis, who are certainly not the beneficiaries of Iranian government assistance, since Sunnis are killing Shias, who are the ones that Iran is close to.
None of this matters to Bush.
Why? Because he’s crazy. Reality and Bush’s psyche are wholly different worlds, people.
When you have a person who’s off his nut in a position of authority, whether it is in your house, in your office, driving a car or running your country, you need to do something to prevent them from causing harm. It won’t do to say, “It’s too much trouble to confront him,” or “He’ll get angry if I challenge him.”
This seems to be the attitude in Congress and the media. The Democrats, who could put the president in a richly deserved straightjacket, are afraid to take that step. The media are afraid the president and his crazy backers would howl if they pointed out how nutty he has become.
So they all let him rant on, as though he were making sense.
The problem is that this president is also the commander in chief. He has ordered three heavily armed (and nuclear-equipped) carrier battle groups to the Persian Gulf and is talking about “dealing” with Iran. We all know what that means. He wants to attack Iran and expand his disastrous war in the Middle East to put us at war with another 70 million people.
Experts are saying we can expect this to happen in mid March or April! They say this even though there are no facts that could justify such a criminal act.
But facts don’t matter to this megalomaniac.
Co-dependency is a condition where people associated with a sick person enable that person to ruin not only their own lives, but the lives of others, because of an inability to confront the sick person. It happens in families, and it is happening today to the American nation.
Co-dependency destroys families, and it has the potential now to destroy the lives of thousands of Americans, tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians, and perhaps America itself.
There is only one proper response to having a lunatic in the White House, and that is to get him out of there, and to prevent him from doing harm to himself and others. What ought to happen is Bush’s medical team should have him declared incompetent. Since that is unlikely to happen, we’re left with two other alternatives. One would be for the military leadership of the nation to not recognize Bush’s orders should he order an attack on Iran to be contrary to International Law, and to disobey him. That seems unlikely, though it is to be profoundly hoped for.
The other is for Congress to recognize its co-dependent behavior, and to take action, filing impeachment bills and getting the process of impeachment hearings underway.
Since the president has clearly broken the law in the case of the National Security Agency spying he ordered up, and since he has clearly abused his power and violated his oath of office with his signing statements, there is really no need for prolonged hearings. An impeachment panel could quickly vote out articles of impeachment on these two issues and send them to the full house for a vote. Were they to do this, I suspect they would find at least some honorable and patriotic Republicans voting with them. At that point the issue could go to the Senate for trial. Meanwhile, the impeachment panel could continue with hearings into Bush’s other crimes and misadventures the lying about the Iraq War, the torture authorization, the violation of habeas corpus, the cover-up of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the lies to and obstruction of the 9-11 Commission, the abandonment of New Orleans to its fate during and after Hurricane Katrina, the war profiteering in Iraq, etc., etc.
The first step, however, is to acknowledge that the president has lost his mind and has become a dangerous psychopath.



If Ron Paul introduced an impeachment resolution…the heads of those grounded in duality would explode. That would be AWESOME.
Ex-libertarian (and current congressman) Dana Rohrabacher is threatening to bring impeachment charges against Bush if he doesn’t pardon 2 border patrol agents who were arrested for shooting a fleeing man in the ass.
That’s a really bad reason to bring impeachment.
There’s no way in hell those regime thugs should be pardoned for shooting someone in the back for violating illegitimate (drug and immigration) laws.
But Bush-Cheney and gang should most definitely be impeached.
Then again, we might just get an indefinite extention of Bush through martial law, precipitated by a war with Iran, Unless The Bush Crime family is impeached now, says Paul Craig Roberts.
Robert Higgs has an in-depth analysis of the
Living Reality of Military-Economic Fascism and corruption through the military-industrial
complex.
And even LP national is talking about The State of the Monarchy.
I guess Rohrabacher really is showing his ex-libertarian (emphasis on “ex”) colors. Of all the justifications for impeachment that has to be the most ridiculous.
Considering Dr. Paul is currently seeking the Republican nomination for President, I imagine it would not be the smartest political move to introduce an impeachment resolution against the current Republican President. Especially considering it would not lead to an actual impeachment.
On the contrary, I think it would be a great move to distinguish himself from the other candidates in the race.
There are quite a few Republicans who are pissed off at what Bush is doing to this country, and many states have open primaries where non-Republicans can vote. There is also still plenty of time for people to register as Republicans in order to vote for him.
It would get him all over the news, and make him a huge story, raising his profile considerably.
He’s already not likely to get a lot of votes from warmongers, being a solidly antiwar candidate. Among antiwar Republicans, I think introducing impeachment in Congress would gain him more votes than it would lose him – and that doesn’t even count all the people who would vote in the primary for him just because of that.
Paulie, I agree and disagree. A lot of Republicans are pissed at Bush, but most of those would not support impeachment. There is a rather large difference. His views on the Iraq war should suffice to differentiate him from the other Republican candidates.
If Dr. Paul is going to seriously attempt to WIN the nomination (even if by long shot), then introducing an impeachment resolution would not be the best way to start off that effort. If Dr. Paul intends to run a Kucinich/Keyes message campaign, then maybe it would be a good idea. However, I believe (without any evidence, by the way) that Dr. Paul is running with the hope that he can pull a Howard Dean, who-the-hell-is-he-oh-wait-now-he’s-the-front-runner type of campaign.
Ron Paul has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination. He is about as likely to be the Republican nominee as Dennis Kucinich is to be the Democratic nominee.
Ron Paul has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as the LP candidate has of winning the general election.
That’s too bad, because he is a lot more libertarian than the other Republicans, but it’s also true.
If he did somehow win the Republican nomination, which would not happen, Hillary would cream him. She would attack him from the right on drugs, and from the left on social spending and entitlements, and that would be the end of that.
But, it wouldn’t get to that, since the other Republicans will do that for her in the primaries, along with some areas where his libertarian views conflict with the Religious Right (although they agree on values, for the most part he would not use government to force people to live by those values nearly as much as they would, with a few exceptions).
Best bet for Ron Paul to get himself noticed and get some decent media, money and votes is introducing Bush-Cheney impeachment in Congress.
It would also be his best bet for actually advancing the cause of liberty.
Quoting a confidential source in a good position to know
Once again, I agree with you Paulie. Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. If I were advising him, I’d have him study Allen Keyes’s two runs for the Republican Presidential nomination (however, certainly not his HORRIBLE Senate campaign). He SHOULD be a message candidate on the order of Kucinich, since doing so would better advance the cause for liberty.
However, from what Dr. Paul has stated, his intention is to try to win even though he knows it is a long shot. I take him at his word. So when I say introducing an impeachment resolution would not be the smartest political move, I mean that with respect to Dr. Paul’s stated objectives.
Duality is a shitty song, as well as a shitty political concept.
Oh yeah, it’s a shitty theological concept to boot, IMHO.
The “H” stands for “haughty,” in case you were wondering.
3 things:
First, I agree that that’s probably the stupidest reason ever for impeachment. Shooting people in the ass is illegal for a reason.
Second, it’s very unlikeley that Ron Paul will get the GOP nomination and almost inconcievable that he can win the presidency. What he might be able to do is start a mass movement. If he can do that, the LP benefits bigtime.
Third, major parties certainly do use the party system to kill off insurgencies, but most of the Ron Paul supporters I’ve talked to so far say that they’re out if he doesn’t win the primary. I know I am. We came in for him, and we’re going right back out if he loses. We hoping to get some old-guard republicans to leave with us when we go.
Matt,
I will not wish ill toward a non-competing campaign, but if Paul loses I look forward to having you back. Bring lots of libertarian friends with you.
George
Digg it…
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Will_Ron_Paul_Introduce_an_Impeachment_Resolution_in_Congress
If I were Ron Paul, I don’t think I’d introduce an impeachment resolution. It would just stir up too much [expletive deleted].
However, I might consider introducing a resolution threatening impeachment if Bush were to invade Iran or Syria, or escalate the Iraq war in a nontrivial manner. I might also call for an investigation into whether the Bush administration is currently conducting operations inside Iran with either US Special Forces or a proxy such as the MEK.
I might also consider introducing a bill to repeal the war authorization from 2002. I might also want to introduce a resolution calling for Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate if the forged Niger documents originated from the Pentagon or the White House. Fitzgerald may already have some leads into this matter.
I would wait until 2008 – about a year from now – and then introduce an impeachment resolution after the GOP candidate has been pretty much selected (assuming it isn’t me – if I were Ron Paul).