You are herecontent / Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach

Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach

By David Swanson

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.

I was a guest today on Bree Walker's radio show. She's the progressive radio host from California who purchased Cindy Sheehan's land from her in Crawford, Texas.

Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" But, of course, what we're waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge rally on the National Mall and declared "We can fire them!" but later explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and Bush and Cheney's terms would end. Was this week's remark just more empty rhetoric?

It appears to be more than that. Bree Walker told me, on the air, that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he'll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn't know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable. It's safe to assume, I think, that we're talking about impeaching Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target is perfectly achievable.

First, there are Congress Members like Jesse Jackson Jr. who have spoken out for impeachment but not signed onto H Res 333. They should be urged to act now! Second, there are dozens of members who signed onto H Res 635 a year and a half ago, Conyers' bill for an investigation into grounds for impeachment, who have not signed onto H Res 333 yet. Third, one of the excuses citizens often hear from lots of Congress Members for not signing onto articles of impeachment is that not enough of their colleagues have signed on and therefore "we don't have the votes." Well that just changed. Now three more votes is all that's needed to get this machine rolling. Fourth, many of the 14 Congress Members backing H Res 333 have used similar excuses to justify refraining from lobbying their colleagues to join them. That can now end. Our 14 leaders can do more than just put down their names.

Now, if Conyers begins impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, we should all be clear on what that will mean. If it is serious, it will not mean sending any subpoenas or contempt citations to the emperors' court. Bush and Cheney have already repeatedly refused to comply with subpoenas.

President Richard Nixon did the same, of course, and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office." But Bush and Cheney have gone further, ordering former staffers not to comply with subpoenas, and announcing that the Justice Department will not enforce any contempt of Congress proceedings.

What the impeachment of Cheney or Bush will be is very, very fast. It will not disrupt or distract from the important business of passing nonbinding resolutions and holding all-night gripe sessions over bills destined to be vetoed. Impeachment in the case of Dick Cheney need not take the three months it did for Nixon or the two months it did for President Bill Clinton. In fact, it could take a day. Here's why:

Bush and Cheney's lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and Bush and Cheney continue to make them to this day. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion.

Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies.

Their threats to Iran are on videotape.

Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape.

Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony.

The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional.

Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements.

Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws.

For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. This impeachment will be swift. And it will require only a simple majority. We already know that the Democrats can vote as a block if they want to, and that a few brave Republicans might join them.

Whether the Senate will then convict Cheney will depend on how much pressure citizens apply and how much information the House manages to force onto television sets. The latter could be surprisingly large and substantive, since the conflict of an impeachment is certain to generate incredible ratings.

But even an acquittal would identify the Senators to be removed from office by voters in 2008. And Cheney (or Bush) would still have been 100% impeached. Al Gore didn't run for president pretending he'd never met Bill Clinton and pick Senator Joe Lieberman as a running mate because the Senate convicted Clinton (it acquitted).

The timing of Conyers' remark may be related to the steps the White House has recently taken to assert "unitary executive" dictatorial power. Bush has commuted the sentence of a subordinate who obstructed an investigation into matters involving Bush and Cheney. And, as mentioned above, neither subpoenas nor contempt citations will go anywhere. Impeachment is no longer merely the appropriate step that it has been for the past six years. It is now the only tool left to the Congress for use in asserting its very existence as a functioning body of government.

But the timing is also quite helpful to the grassroots movement for impeachment, and rather symbolic. Five years ago this Monday, the meeting was held at #10 Downing Street that produced the Downing Street Minutes. Over two years ago, then Ranking Member Conyers held a hearing in the basement of the Capitol, the only space the Republican leadership would allow him. At that hearing, several Democratic Congress Members for the first time began talking about impeachment. The witnesses at the hearing were Ambassador Joseph Wilson, attorney John Bonifaz, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and a then unknown gold star mother named Cindy Sheehan. They discussed the evidence of the Downing Street documents, which added significantly to the growing body of evidence that Bush and Cheney misled the Congress about the case for war.

This Monday, Sheehan and McGovern and a great many leaders of the movements for peace and impeachment will lead a march at 10 a.m. at Arlington National Cemetery. We will march to Congressman Conyers office and ask to talk with him about impeachment. We will refuse to leave without either a commitment to begin at once the impeachment of Cheney or Bush or both, or our arms in handcuffs. The same day, groups in several states around the country will be sitting in and risking arrest for impeachment in the district offices of their congress members.

Not everyone will be able to take part. But everyone can take two minutes on Monday and do two things: phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for impeachment. Your Congress Member might just be one of the three needed, not just to keep us out of jail but to keep this nation from devolving into dictatorship.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Concerned citizens will gather at Congressman Pete Visclosky's Merrillville, IN office to convince our congressman to be one of the three needed for Chairman Conyers to start impeachment of both the President and Vice President.

Join in person
Congressman Pete Visclosky's office
Monday July 23
701 East 83rd Ave.
Merrilliville, IN 46410

Join us online by signing our impeachment statement to our congressman. Simply email your name, address, city, state and a statement to attach if you would like to make one to me at the address below.
Our statement to our Congressman

Congressman Pete Visclosky,

With their preemptive, illegal and immoral “war of aggression” in Iraq, sold to the American People with a propaganda campaign of lies, misinformation and half-truths, the President and Vice President should be impeached, removed from office and stand trial in an international court for war crimes.

There is no lack of legitimate impeachment charges or evidence. In fact it will take some work to narrow down the list of charges.
• The President and Vice President conspired to defraud the American People and Congress into believing that Iraq possessed WMDs and was a threat to use them against us.
• They conspired to defraud the American People that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were linked to the 9/11 attacks and al Qaeda.
• They led the nation into a “war of aggression” (‘the supreme international crime’ Nuremburg Tribunal) in violation of the United Nations Charter.
• The House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic Staff Report states there is a prima facie case that the President and his Administration are guilty of breaking at least 7 international and federal laws in the run up to the Iraq Invasion.
• They have and continued to torture.
• They have suspended habeas corpus and held prisoners without charges in excess of 5 years.
• In direct violation of the FISA law they have wiretapped U.S. citizens without a warrant.
• They were grossly negligent in their response to Hurricane Katrina.
• They have politicized the U.S. Department of Justice by encouraging and discouraging prosecution of individuals according to what political party they belong to.
• With presidential “signing statements” and the Administration’s unilateral theory of a “unitary executive” they attempted to change the balance of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
• They have refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas in oversight investigations.
• The President has obstructed justice by commuting Scooter Libby’s jail sentence after Libby refused to give testimony on the President and Vice President’s involvement in outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.
• They have attempted to allow the theft of 80% of present Iraq oil fields and 100% of future fields by multinational oil companies through the Iraqi Hydrocarbons Bill, passage of which is demanded as a benchmark for progress by the Iraqi government and parliament.

This is criminal and under this President and Vice President our government is criminal. We demand that you represent your constituents, the American People and the Constitution of the United States and actively pursue impeachment articles against the President and Vice President.

Nick Egnatz
Munster, Indiana
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Veterans For Peace

Keep up the pressure Sir!

~ Mikael Rudolph

Pete, it is about time something is done with the vice-president. It seems, that he can be part of the legislative branch or the executive branch when it suits either secretive need of his. He has given ample reasons for impeachment during his tenure as vp. Please back up representatives Conyers and Kucinich in this endeavor. Sincerely Mick Cooper & & &

( OUT (side our) LAWs )

bush Cheney image


OK 2 copy and send 2 family, friends, your reps...

TODAY NOW go get em at....

Scroll down a bit... Later,

I am all FOR impeachment and hope it happens. Americans are so sad,we need some justice here.

I don't know if this is an impeachable offense, but it probably was illegal, so add it to the list:

Come on now, let's take these one by one and we'll see that there's absolutely no case to make against the president or the vice-president.
1. "Conspiracy of the president and vice-president to defraud the American people and congress into believing that Iraq had WMD's and the will to use them." The president relies on the intelligence community to assess this kind of information, and the intelligece community made the case. This is public information. Plus, you'll have to prove that Bush and Cheney huddled together and came up with a plan, so intelligent, so devious as to trick everyone who supported the Iraq conflict when it started. By the way, when you make this argument, you're making a fantastic case for the president being smarter than the vast majority of Americans, including anyone you know who, at the outset, supported the war. Further, you're saying Bush himself is smart, not just Cheney, because the conspiracy charge will be against Bush as an individual. Way to go for making the president, in a legal and historically binding way if you win, the smartest president ever.
2. "Conspiracy to link Hussein and Iraq to 9/11 and Al Qaeda." Again, the public, historical, information points out that two major intelligence operations, both the U.S. and the U.K., had been supporting this claim to the leadership. It is reasonable to expect the president to take the advice of this community. If they were saying it, no conspiracy.
3. "Violation of UN Charter." Documented evidence of a threat from a hostile regime is grounds for preemptive defense. Or, are you arguing that Saddam Hussein was a peace-loving defender of freedom and harmony? Because, hey Nick, if you are, you might lose some support in this forum. People are smarter than that.
4. Nick, Nick, Nick... the House Judiciary Cmte's Dem staff say the president did something wrong? You. Don't. Say! Hill staff are Hill staff are Hill staff. It's partisanship, and by touting it here you're supporting it. Partisanship is the problem, and you can support it and be part of the problem, or you can not rely upon partisan information, and be part of the solution. This is an issue for both sides of the aisle... why are you fueling the fire?
5. "Charges of torture." You can't try them for torture, because they weren't the ones doing it. If torture has been committed, you can try the person or persons responsible for it with the charge. For something like this to stick to the president or VP, you'll have to prove they meant torture as it stands in an established criminal definition as it relates to government entities. Good luck on that one.
6. "Habeas Corpus and imprisonment charge." Habeas corpus is part of the U.S. criminal code as it applies to U.S. citizens or foreign citizens on U.S. soil or jurisdiction. Enemy combatants fighting for a non-Sovereign entity against the United States pretty much roll the dice to do so, as the UNDHR and the rules of engagement on the battlefield only apply to sovereign nations. It's pretty much the same thing with the imprisonment charge. Have there been violations? Depends on how you look at it, and there is a legal case to be made on the side of any defense strategy.
7. "FISA" The order to go around FISA had incredibly sound reasoning, and allowed the system to be effective. The president has it in his authority to make orders that the government has to follow, and congress, the republicans and democrats (and two indies) you elected to represent you, were well aware of what it was doing and didn't have a problem with it. If you don't like your rep for doing that, you should vote for the other guy next time. Nevertheless, your argument here legally has problems, politically has problems for any member of congress who was briefed on it, and, some might say, morally has problems since you're arguing that the president be made to use a system that our enemies have learned how to subvert, rather than being effective in his job to protect the country. Thanks, for that last one.
8. "Katrina negligence." Again, you'll have to prove that the president and vice-president were responsible for the problems, completely. If the governor, senators, representative(s) and/or mayor had any part in the problem, your argument just isn't going to hold water in an impeachment hearing. And come on, there's a mountain of evidence on how other people failed.
9. "Politicization of Justice Department." OK, one, every president does this, and two, these people served at the pleasure of the president. They displeased the president. They got fired. Pretty simple, and not illegal.
10. "Use of 'signing statement' attempts to change the balance of powers in the Constitution." Signing statements are legal. End of story. (Plus, other presidents who have been impeached have used them and signing statements were not part of the trial... so there's already a legal precedent against this 'charge'.)
11. "Refusing to comply with subpoena." Not everything illegal is a high crime or misdemeanor, but even still, Justice complied with the order to not serve the subpoenas. You're not in violation if you haven't been served. Now, had the subpoenas been for something substantial, and not partisan politics looking to get press attention, the outcome from the Hill would have been different. But honestly, the Dems just didn't have the political will to keep going. Not served, no violation, no charge.
12. "A commutation of sentence is an obstruction of justice." No, this too is a legal power of the president. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal. Sometimes it's ok to be disappointed when something happens and it doesn't go your way. Life's not fair, and, and this might be a shock to you Nick, you have no legal standing to demand that life be fair. What's fair to you might be unfair to someone else, and, Nick... why do you want to be unfair to others?
13. "Setting benchmarks for other nations is... well, no charge has been stated on the 13th argument." I hate to call this to your attention Nick, but last time I checked, Iraq is a sovereign nation which is accepting the assistance of the United States right now, and has repeatedly said that it plans to do so into the future. Further, no matter what laws the U.S. congress passes, the Iraqi Parliament is not bound to comply with any of them.

Nick, you are obviously an intelligent man, noted clearly by your use of the English language, so it perplexes me, and many of us who read your statements, as to why you wouldn't have thought through your arguments better. Unfortunately I didn't see this until likely after your meeting with Congressman Visclosky's office, but hopefully you can pass it around to other groups before they run into elected officials offices without thinking through their statements. Thanks! Best of luck to you and yours.

Niger Yellowcake Forgeries and Downing Street Memos.
Google 'em. Try it , you won't like it.



Impeachment may be the last chance we have to avoid losing our democracy. The administration has been putting together the legal framework needed to take control of the country.

We're on the brink of fascism; where the wealthy individuals who own the corporations and who finance the Republican Party can overturn our democracy.

is through the Forest of Lies about 9-11!

Rob Paul has been talking a good game, but I don't understand why he isn't already sponsoring HR.333. It's beginning to smell of empty posturing - and partisanship.

If on the other hand, Representative Paul is for real, he can make historic headlines, and serious name-recognition for himself, by being the first Republican PRINCIPLED enough to "defect" to the Democratic-authored Articles of Impeachment - a TRUE bi-partisan effort.

And particularly so now, when Paul can put Impeachment "over the top"; as part of the three which Conyers claims he needs now. (Of course, it goes without saying, that if Conyers gets these co-sponsors and then betrays us again, we will fucking crucify him!)

But if Ron Paul does NOT make himself part of these 3 which are necessary, he will lose all credibility as well.

Semper Fi,

-Matty in Florida

Yesterday I was In Charlottesville VA. for the Impeachment march with Cindy Sheehan. I was able to talk to her briefly. She looked really tired but she was very gracious. I would have liked to talk longer but there was a lot going on. I did notice that she had a Ron Paul button on her purse. I don't think that Cindy would support him she thought he wouldn't support Impeachment.


I don't doubt Sheehan is supporting Ron Paul. I do too, for the same reasons I'm sure - but that support is not unconditional. Cindy once supported the Democratic Party, too, based on their righteous statements of intent. But a lot of that went by the wayside this spring, as the majority of them betrayed Justice, the Constitution and all of US. Ron Paul - and all the others - should take note.

The time to ACT is NOW, and the window of opportunity will soon disappear, never to return. Just like our support - unless they DO THEIR DUTY NOW.

Semper Fi,

-Matty in Florida

My fear about Ron Paul is that his Libertarianism leans towards "free markets" rather than the Constitutional protections for freedoms of the individual. Smaller government means more de-regulation for corporations and less power for me.
I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich !

Kucinich is a gun grabber and a UN Supporter.

See the issues that paul has at.

& This One.

And finally this one.

He's for reasonable gun ownership. I am for gun liscenses . I am for short waiting periods too. Are you against auto tags and drivers liscenses? The Founding Fathers did not have automatic weapons , they had muskets, so it is ludicrous to think that Dennis Kucinich is against gun ownership, and it is a lie being spread by the far right who want to keep the GOP fascists in power. Guns, just like oil-driven cars, are a religion in this country, so you are falling prey to Rovian tactics.

As far as UN is concerned, America is part of the international community , so it would be ludicrous to not participate in international law. John Bolton was a PNAC plant in the UN seat to try to destroy America's future in the UN. Bush/Cheney want NO restraints by international laws at all. That is the mistake we made by allowing Bush to behave uni-laterally without UN support in Iraq. That is why Iraq is just an "American problem" now. If we do not participate in the UN , then the next "king" or "queen" will just deny UN and international law exists and go conquering and colonizing everywhere in the world.

I like restraints placed on nutty fascist tyrants.

I was a staunch supporter of Dennis Kucinich in the last presidential election cycle. I contributed to his campaign... the ONLY time I have ever contributed to a campaign in my life. I have voted every year since I was 18 yrs old... I am now 48. I have voted, for the most part, Democrat, except for specific local candidates who I knew to be doing a good job even though they were Repubs... usually judges and so forth. I was BITTERLY disappointed by Dennis concerning his actions at the Dem. convention when he totally folded to the warmongers after PROMISING us that he would see it through to the bitter end and make sure he got our concerns onto the platform. He had the clout and the delegates to do so. When he jumped at the opportunity to restrict my second amendment right further ( there are already more than enough laws on the books regarding this issue), Dennis Kucinich lost me for all time. I am a Ron Paul supporter... I will campaign tirelessly for him. I will never trust Dennis Kucinich again. I believe Ron Paul is the only hope for our country. If we don't change the direction of this country in a radical, drastic way.... all will be lost. BTW.... the licensing and registering process is a totally unconstitutional a citizen of this country I have a RIGHT to drive. The only reason for this bogus process is to advance the police state and line the coffers of an already repressive government. They use these 'laws' to steal from us and restrict those they may deem to be 'unacceptable'. In the beginning, they only targeted safety. Now they are using this abuse of our rights to restrict the poor. This is a fact. Why are they allowed to take the licenses of fathers who cannot afford to pay support? Yesterday it was the unsafe, today it is the poor.... tomorrow it will be you.
Provincial.... a heartbroken grandmother.

The sudden pile-on of these spoilers - in pairs - with their personal "issues"; "michael.098762001" / "ZoeUna" and now "afijamesy2k" / "Provincialparadigm" - NOW, at this crucial moment for impeachment - is no coincidence.

Note virtually all of the above suddenly appeared here with NOTHING TO SAY PROMOTING IMPEACHMENT. On the contrary, their newly-broached subjects are the same hackneyed political "hot-buttons" pitting neighbor against neighbor, American against American which have been used by politicians to disempower constituents for decades. Literally from nowhere we suddenly have "concerns" about Communist Patsies, Reproductive Rights and now Gun Rights and UN Paranoia as well. Stay tuned for "Sexual Preference", "Undocumented Workers" etc., etc. - ad nauseam.

What, pray tell, does any of this do for our push to impeach?

Oh, and also the gratuitous portrayal, by "afijamesy2k" & "Provincialparadigm", of Representative Dennis Kucinich as The Devil.

"Divide and Conquer" - sorry, assholes, not today!

And as for Ron Paul, or anyone else: until he actually SPONSORS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, he is nothing at all - completely irrelevant - while Kucinich is at least ALREADY DOING SOMETHING.

Now, here's what to do: FORGET these sappers and CALL CONYERS' OFFICE TOMORROW - MONDAY, July 23 - TO DEMAND IMPEACHMENT:
Or, toll-free, connect through the Capitol Switchboard:
(800) 828-0498
(800) 459-1887
(800) 614-2803

Use these Capitol Switchboard numbers also to contact YOUR OWN REPRESENTATIVE, with the same demand, and/or you can eMail them here.

DO IT TOMORROW - Monday, July 23 - in solidarity with the Occupation Contingent of impeachment leaders who will descend on Conyers' office to demand, at risk of arrest, OUR DEMAND for impeachment, before they will leave.

Because WE - AMERICANS - are TOGETHER in this, and we all know it.

Now, here is the impeachment flag I made in anticipation of this moment:

Feel free to download and use it, free of any obligation, for any and all Good Works, my Bruthas and Sistahs!

Semper Fi,

-Matty in Florida

You are right we don't want to get distracted from the issue at hand, which is holding accountable those who are lied to, spied on and abused Americans. We can argue about issues and candidates later. Right now the issue is accountability.

We can take back our country, non-violently and with honor.

Disregard that title - it's the only thing I could conjure up which rhymed with "pink". THANKS for the compliment on the flag, sweetie. I didn't have time yet, but I'm going to make one with ORANGE stripes, instead of the red.

And you are SO RIGHT: plenty of time to accommodate all our individual differences - once we can restore some DECENCY and DEMOCRACY. That's why there IS an AMERICA, in the first place!


-Matty in Florida

Hey Matty... I have been calling my representative as well as my senators AS WELL AS Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for MONTHS demanding that they not only impeach the criminals in the executive branch... but that they also charge them with treason. Actually, I was on this band wagon YEARS ago... when they first attacked us on 911, I was screaming for pnac signatories to be investigated. So don't even go there about divide and conquer... and I WOULD support a paul/kucinich ticket... that is something I was talking about during the 2004 election cycle. However after kucinich's performance at the 2004 dem convention... I think we would be better served with a Paul/Gravel ticket. That being said... at least kucinich had the guts to introduce HR333 for that I do give him great credit. Anyway.... I spent yesterday reaming out all my friends, neighbors and family about calling our representative and conyers office to DEMAND the impeachment and the investigation of the executive criminal cabal for their treason.... we will see if any of them listened.... this is the problem... getting people off their lazy duffs to make the calls. They all agree and want this to happen, I give them the phone numbers, I explain to them how to be polite etc... and then it is up to them. Is it that so many are so fed up with the corruption and the impotence of the legislative branch that they simply don't bother? Will it make a difference? We need MORE than impeachment... we need plenty in the legislative branch to be held accountable as well..... and we CAN'T wait for the next election... our country is in GRAVE trouble.

Sorry, but driving isn't a right, nor should owning guns be. Driving is a priviledge, and once you show that you are able to follow the driving and safety laws of the state/country, THEN, and only then should you be allowed to drive. The same goes for gun ownership. Technically, yes you have the right to do it, but it is also a priviledge once you show you can be responsible about it. Stop thinking the world owes you a gun just because you were born here...people should have to prove they will be responsible gun owners just like they would to get a drivers license, or even a license to practice law or medicine. If you do it irresposibly, you get it taken away.

"nor should owning guns be."

That may be your opinion, but the fact is that it is a right. Not only does the US Constitution *not* forbid gun ownership, or allow Congress to regulate guns (and if the Constitution doesn't say they can do it, then they can't), there's actually the 2nd amendment to help reaffirm that it is absolutely a right.

"Technically, yes you have the right to do it, but it is also a priviledge once you show you can be responsible about it.

As mentioned, it's not a privilege; it's a right. There's a solid distinction.

"Stop thinking the world owes you a gun just because you were born here..."

Whoa.. no one said anything about being owed a gun. Just because someone has the right to bear arms does not mean that they are owed anything by anyone else. It means that they can seek out gun ownership without any government regulation.

"people should have to prove they will be responsible gun owners"

Again, that may be your opinion, and if you support that, then you should work towards a Constitutional amendment to make it so. As it is now, there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to require that one shows any responsibility in order to own a gun.

For the record, I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I support Dennis Kucinich's HR333 bill and hope that Ron Paul will sign on to it very soon.

Only dogs need a license, freemen don't. Believe me, if founding fathers could have had an uzi rather than a musket when the british arrived they would have been overjoyed. I call yours a dumb arguement.

Drivers licences were originally to certify slaves were proficient in driving wagons to obtain supplys in town for the masters.

Hitler had guns registered so he knew where to collect them when he decided to concuer the world.

The UN prevents nothing, they do nothing (but talk) and should be abolished. Great countrys should stand tall and on their own merit. International law means the restrictive countries and free countries find an inbetween to meet. How many of YOUR rights and freedoms are you willing to give up to be part of the world union? Sadly, I'm guessing far too many. I wouldn't give up a single one. They can take you, I won't fight for your freedom.

"Are you against auto tags and drivers liscenses?"



For me to buy your assertion, I also must buy your assertion baselessly, as that is the way it was given. Care to prove your points? Making your case... "Kucinich is a gun grabber and a UN Supporter," on facts goes a lot farther than the dribble you spit at us today.

Don't get me wrong, Paul has redeeming qualities too.

But come on...

If anything, what we should have learned from the Republicans, is how NOT to be more like them. NO?

I'm a Recent Conserative Libertarian now and I Do not support some of kucinich's issues and I Will not and never vote for him

See Ron Paul's Issues at this site.

Paul is a better republican than most of those garbage republicans of today.

Kucinich and Paul could make a formidable third ticket... Just saying.

They can work out the details, prez, veep, etc...

Just saying. :)

Details prez and veep, who cares? Look who's REALLY prez now... DICKtator!

I Think Paul/Clark would be much better, I Can't stand kucinich, since he wants to take away our guns and wants the UN to fight Iraq and wants nation building , That's why I'm a libertarian.
and kucinich deserves nothing from me.

See this Video.

Wesley Clark is thankfully a centrist.

Who initiated these lies against Kucinich? This seems to be a strictly Libertarian trend to spread these false rumors. It is starting to make me feel very suspicious about Ron Paul and /or his Libertarian constituents. Does anyone have cold hard facts that Kucinich wants to take our guns? I have not seen one yet.


See the issues at.

Makes me sad.

As I said, you show nothing that Kucinich wants to confiscate guns.

NRA will give anyone an F who wants to control automatic machine guns. Doh.

Here is the whole thing:

Require background checks, licensing, and fingerprinting. (Jan 2004)

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

It's all common sense gun safety and law enforcement stuff. Anybody who says Kucinich wants to confiscate all your guns is full of shit.

Video Commentary You'll Never See in the MSM:
Now Playing: "Get Ready for the Real News"



You say things (for the most part) exactly like I would want to say 'em. Except you talk a lot less, in the execution. LOL

Keep on Doin' What You Do, buddy!

Semper Fi,

-Matty in Florida

seriously! What Democrat in the past hundred years took away a single bullet much less a gun?

And what are we doing in Iraq but nation building? Let the UN do it. They have the collected know how of hundreds of countries that have had to build in the recent history.

Why worry over things that are improbably remote?

I don't know his position on guns, so I won't make the claim that he's a "gun-grabber". But what you call "common sense gun safety" I call "pointless." Common sense gun safety is "always keep firearms unloaded and locked away when not in use" and "use two hands to aim".. those sort of things. Licensing, fingerprinting, waiting periods, etc.. none of these increase safety.

would you support a join ron paul / dennis kucinich ticket (i'm proposing it in that order) ? the idea being to have cross-party support to create a smaller federal government, and to return the responsibility for many things back to the individual states, at the same time making sure that the rug wasn't being pulled out from under our feet before the states got their acts together. paul and kucinich have worked together on issues in the past, and in fact do line up in many areas.

Only if Kucinich is the President. Paul is too corporate oriented. He may not see it that way, but his platform includes deregulation of corporations and doing away with social security. Too many people are relying on SS as their only chance to live for the program to be eliminated now. These people have paid in all their working lives, and to have that jerked away now would be murder.

His misrepresent Ron Paul's stance. He has no intention of jerking anything out from underneath anyone that is dependent, or will soon be dependent, on Social Security or Medicare. His idea is to phase it out, not jerk it out.

And pro-deregulation is not pro-corporatism. Corporatism is a form of regulation, as corporation are government-created entities. If you remove all regulation, then you remove the corporate veil that protects business owners from the consequences of their actions, making them liable for what they do just as any individual would be.

Is Ron Paul going to 'phase out' single parents and widows/widowers with children too? Is he going to 'phase out' vets with disability and PTSD's too?

Where are the poor , disabled and seniors, etc going to be 'phased-in', according to Ron Paul? That is the part of the equation that is missing from Ron Paul 'liberating' American citizens from their entitlements. Is Ron Paul going to build poor houses, orphanages, insane asylums, and nursing homes ? Or is he going to 'phase in' all these American citizens to the streets, so that 'free markets' can be free of taxes and profit more at the expense of American citizens ?

I think we should all 'phase-out' Ron Paul from government paycheck, govt bennies, and govt pension, and government housing (White House) altogether, and simply not vote for him so he can be phased back into 'free market' private practice. I know I will "phase-out" Ron Paul in November 2008!

I am also voting for Kucinich. He is for the people not the corporate powers that currently "own" our goverment. As far as the comment below about him being a gun grabber - well voting for single issues is not good. you have to look at the big picture and this "free market" talk is nothing more than allowing corporations to continue their mergers and driving all the little guys out of business. There is just no balance left and we need someone to restore government to the people. This is more important.

It amazes me how many people don't understand that free markets are naturally anti-corporation.

Whenever Libertarians defend Ron Paul, they never use facts, just quips and "blurbs". As with Neocons, I guess Libertarianism is an ideaology to sell to the serfs that the facts don't matter!

How can un-regulated corporatism be anti-corporation? Do you realize how paradoxical your statement is? Libertarianism would illegally give corporations more "personhood" than they enjoy now!

When you say that capitalism is more important than democracy, then Libertarianism is clearly Corporatist, and ANTI-Constitutional. The Founding Fathers knew this , and that is why goverment should PROTECT citizens from corporate abuses! Our rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS are for CITIZENS, NOT 'free markets'.

There is a reason Libertarians call themselves Libertarians instead of Constitutionalists. Libertarians want to be liberated from the Constitution!!!
In America, CITIZENS HAVE RIGHTS, corporations should not!

what do you think is happening to your power as a US citizen now??? Its gotten so low you dont even know how low it is, you want a smaller government with as little power as possible when it comes to your freedom as an individual......our government now in the white house is ridiculously huge and every day we lose rights as a people bodied government so the way to keep the government from getting even bigger and more entangeld and interfering in our own civil liberties and personal freedoms is to make it smaller....Ron Paul has got it right 10 times over and over!!!! Dennis Kucinich?? he may be a good senator but he aint president material....wake up!!!!!!!

"My fear about Ron Paul is that his Libertarianism leans towards "free markets" rather than the Constitutional protections for freedoms of the individual."

What do you mean "rather than"? Free markets *equal* Constitutional protections for individual freedoms; they are not opposing ideas.

I think you see corporations as a result of the free market, when in actuality, corporations are government-created entities that allow business owners to take acts for which they are not personally liable. In other words, corporations exist because we have too much government control. No wonder businesses act unethically; they don't have to stand accountable for their actions. The government-created "corporation" actually protects them from the consequences of their actions.

In a true free market, everyone is responsible for their own actions, whether they are operating a business or just running their own personal lives. If a business owner decides that his business is going to dump trash on your property, he goes to jail just as if he were an individual, because he is an individual. In a free market, government oversight of businesses is not necessary, because everyone has individual freedom; and just as importantly, the responsibility that comes with that freedom.

"(Of course, it goes without saying, that if Conyers gets these co-sponsors and then betrays us again, we will fucking crucify him!)"

OMG... I laughed... but you are SOOOO right. Conyers CANNOT afford to waffle any longer.

Spoken like a true patriot of this country and i totally couldnt agree with you more!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.