Impeach Bush

[Areopagus]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46062

President Bush has had nearly five years in office to honor his oath of office and enforce immigration laws in this country.

He has not only failed, he has intentionally neglected this sworn duty, instead claiming he prefers to promote a vague immigration "reform" plan that involved a "guest worker" program that has served as an encouragement to the most massive influx of illegal immigration this country has ever seen.

Some will remind me I endorsed Bush just two years ago for re-election.

My response? I made it very clear at the time that I was not really endorsing Bush, per se, but seeking the only practical way to defeat his reckless and irresponsible and treasonous opponent. There is no contradiction here. Kerry had to be defeated. Now Bush must go. America can do better.

Americans are dealing with more joblessness, higher crime, skyrocketing taxes, a crippled medical system, overcrowded jails, an overburdened judicial and law enforcement system, costly and divisive language barriers and changing demographics that are permanently transforming the U.S. culture.

Why?

Bush claims it is because America needs cheap labor. That's what the law of supply and demand is all about. It's not his duty or responsibility to acquire workers for big corporations and other fat cats below what the market will support.

[Areopagus]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7267.shtml

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’”

Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial:

“The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”

[exmarine]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46062

President Bush has had nearly five years in office to honor his oath of office and enforce immigration laws in this country.

He has not only failed, he has intentionally neglected this sworn duty, instead claiming he prefers to promote a vague immigration "reform" plan that involved a "guest worker" program that has served as an encouragement to the most massive influx of illegal immigration this country has ever seen.

Some will remind me I endorsed Bush just two years ago for re-election.

My response? I made it very clear at the time that I was not really endorsing Bush, per se, but seeking the only practical way to defeat his reckless and irresponsible and treasonous opponent. There is no contradiction here. Kerry had to be defeated. Now Bush must go. America can do better.

Americans are dealing with more joblessness, higher crime, skyrocketing taxes, a crippled medical system, overcrowded jails, an overburdened judicial and law enforcement system, costly and divisive language barriers and changing demographics that are permanently transforming the U.S. culture.

Why?

Bush claims it is because America needs cheap labor. That's what the law of supply and demand is all about. It's not his duty or responsibility to acquire workers for big corporations and other fat cats below what the market will support.

I read this commentary from Joseph Farah today and agree 100%. Farah was wrong to vote for Bush. Note that he voted for Bush to avoid the likes of Kerry. He changed is mind at the last second. Nothing like choosing your poison...

In effect, Kerry acted as sort of a reverse moral standard, and millions of other Americans used the same rationale in voting for Bush. I talked to many in fact. Biblical principle and the Constitution are the only standards worth followinig, but most bible-based churches lost sight of that, and opted for a lesser standard and the failed philosophy of incrementalism.

God is our Savior. It is God who won the battles for Israel and who wins our battles today. Just as God won battles against enormous odds for faithful men such as Jehoshaphat, Gideon, David, Jonathan, etc. Those men trusted God against seemingly impossible odds....and won!

[Tmax]

Here is a fun fact. I'll bet a case could be made to impeach each and every president in the last hundred years (if not in our history) becuase men are imperfect. Was any president actually able to fulfill his intended accomplishments?

[exmarine]

Here is a fun fact. I'll bet a case could be made to impeach each and every president in the last hundred years (if not in our history) becuase men are imperfect. Was any president actually able to fulfill his intended accomplishments?

It's an interesting question. Certainly, many of those presidents acted unconstitutionally and some egregiously so. I believe that the Constitution is the standard, not "intended accomplishments." The Constitution is the Law of the Land to which each President swears an oath with his hand on a bible. The President is not above the Law of the Land and neither is the Congress or the courts.

Do I think that impeachment will stop the moral freefall of America? No, I don't. However, I can only do my duty to God and country that is within my power to do. The rest is in God's hands. He is sovereign and in control. Nothing surprises Him.

In our day, perfidy has reached new heights at a time when our very national existence is at stake. What is the reality? Do I have too high of a standard, or is it that America has lowered its standards to a very low level? I think the latter is the case. I do not demand that they be perfect, but I do demand that our elected leaders honor their SWORN OATHS. I hold my leaders to very high standard as well it should be if they are true leaders.

We are under threat from national destruction by islamic terrorists, illegal immigration has exploded into a full-blown invasion while our elected leaders turn a blind eye, God is being erased at light speed from the public square, slaughter of the unborn continues unabated, and the arbitrary rule of men has replaced the rule of Law.

Let's face it - our country is circling the drain. Someone has to shout from the rooftops, and even if nothing changes, I pray that I will be able to look back and see that I did my duty as a citizen as God would have me do it.

Ultimately, my hope is eternal not temporal. If the United States ceased to be, I would still have hope because eternal hope never dies. I am not looking for heaven on earth. But I love my country and it hurts me deeply to see it destroyed before my eyes.

[wmgreene]

So, have you seen what your up against with your impeachment campaign?

Check out bushislord.com

As you review it, believe what you want, but please keep in mind this subject was discussed Pope John Paul II as reported here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880).

Blessings,
Bill

[exmarine]

So, have you seen what your up against with your impeachment campaign?

Check out bushislord.com

As you review it, believe what you want, but please keep in mind this subject was discussed Pope John Paul II as reported here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880).

Blessings,
Bill

The BushisLord website looks like a sarcastic parody to me. As for Bush being the anti-Christ - I think that is ridiculous. If that were true, then liberals would support him (since they have the most satanic philosophy), and most of the world would be supporting him. The anti-Christ will have widespread appeal worldwide. I don't see that. Besides, Bush will be out of office in 3 years.

[TheSeventhStooge]

It's an interesting question. Certainly, many of those presidents acted unconstitutionally and some egregiously so. I believe that the Constitution is the standard, not "intended accomplishments." The Constitution is the Law of the Land to which each President swears an oath with his hand on a bible. The President is not above the Law of the Land and neither is the Congress or the courts.

Do I think that impeachment will stop the moral freefall of America? No, I don't. However, I can only do my duty to God and country that is within my power to do. The rest is in God's hands. He is sovereign and in control. Nothing surprises Him.

In our day, perfidy has reached new heights at a time when our very national existence is at stake. What is the reality? Do I have too high of a standard, or is it that America has lowered its standards to a very low level? I think the latter is the case. I do not demand that they be perfect, but I do demand that our elected leaders honor their SWORN OATHS. I hold my leaders to very high standard as well it should be if they are true leaders.

We are under threat from national destruction by islamic terrorists, illegal immigration has exploded into a full-blown invasion while our elected leaders turn a blind eye, God is being erased at light speed from the public square, slaughter of the unborn continues unabated, and the arbitrary rule of men has replaced the rule of Law.

Let's face it - our country is circling the drain. Someone has to shout from the rooftops, and even if nothing changes, I pray that I will be able to look back and see that I did my duty as a citizen as God would have me do it.

Ultimately, my hope is eternal not temporal. If the United States ceased to be, I would still have hope because eternal hope never dies. I am not looking for heaven on earth. But I love my country and it hurts me deeply to see it destroyed before my eyes.

Absolutely outstanding post, exmarine!

I agree with you; if a man or woman takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, that oath must be taken seriously with the intention of being fulfilled to the best of their ability. That is the major problem I see with the vast majority of politicians on every level of government today. They see the oath as just a couple of sentences that they have to repeat, as if they are reading "See Spot Run" to their 4th-grade teachers.

If, as TMax said, every president in the last 100 years has violated that oath, I would have no problem with every president in the last 100 years being impeached. If the politicians in this country do not open their eyes and actually take their oaths seriously, maybe we should have impeachment hearings every day until they are all cleared out.

Hey, here's an idea- "The Impeachment Channel" on sattelite TV! That would be a great channel to have!!!

TheSeventhStooge...

[LAmama]

We are under threat from national destruction by islamic terrorists, illegal immigration has exploded into a full-blown invasion while our elected leaders turn a blind eye, God is being erased at light speed from the public square, slaughter of the unborn continues unabated, and the arbitrary rule of men has replaced the rule of Law.

Let's face it - our country is circling the drain. Someone has to shout from the rooftops, and even if nothing changes, I pray that I will be able to look back and see that I did my duty as a citizen as God would have me do it.


You are right exmarine. :mad:

Have you or others here given serious thought as to who would replace President Bush should an Impeachment campaign succeed and cause his impeachment or resignation? Resignation may be a strong possibility anyway. Three more years...

Would it really make sense to spend time working for impeachment? Would it help the cause of the Constitution Party? Could impeachment draw attention to the fact that there is a growing number of Republicans and others who want a real Republic? With all of the anti-war movement on the left, would the voices be confused? There is a potential for confusion unless the impeachment campaign was well funded or the LORD was behind it. But a LOT could happen in 3 years.

Would it be better to instead work now towards promoting the Constitution Party presidential nominee for 2008 in a more "positive" way? Or again, would an impeachment campaign work hand in hand with that goal? I think it might, IF the Constitution Party was able to generate a clear note and a certain sound - IF the LORD...

exmarine, may the LORD help us ALL to do our duty as citizens - whatever our unique, individual, lives and abilities allow us to do in and through the greatest nation(for now) on God's green earth.

[wmgreene]

The BushisLord website looks like a sarcastic parody to me. As for Bush being the anti-Christ - I think that is ridiculous. If that were true, then liberals would support him (since they have the most satanic philosophy), and most of the world would be supporting him. The anti-Christ will have widespread appeal worldwide. I don't see that. Besides, Bush will be out of office in 3 years.

OK, So let me try to say it a different way; have you seen what the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan at Tokyo is up to? Check out
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/icta.judgment.htm

Have you figured out yet what their up against? Check out bushislord.com

As you review these two links, believe what you want, but please keep in mind this subject was discussed Pope John Paul II as reported at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880

Also keep in mind, that the "imminent" threat of mankind's knowledge of weapons of mass destruction is something to be concerned about, and I for one am very concerned that war with Iran will break out soon, and if this happens I am also very concerned that Bush will use the bunker buster and start a nuclear winter by igniting one of the worlds largest oil reserves, and according to the Book of Revelations a significant portion of all life will cease to exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/23/MNGSPA04NG1.DTL

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm

So am I saying that Pope John Paul II was right? Well, I don’t know, because to me the Christ is the effect to perfect matter when two or more come together in worship of God, and so, rather than a person, the anti-christ would be a complete reversal of that effect.

That is, in accordance with the Biblical Doctrine of Retribution, which expressly states that based upon the exact proportion of the population in union with God God acts by preference to the community to bring about a greater state of harmony, health and longevity leading to and including the biolongevity of the redemptive state, redemption as a process is associated with the perfection of matter (Romans 8:21) whereby the radiance of God’s glory and very imprint of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3) is brought into being. And so to me, the anti-christ would also be associated with any process that leads the people away from being in union with God and therefore away from a state of being whereby the very imprint of God’s being would otherwise have been brought into being.

I do know that if Bush is allowed to use the Bunker Buster, this weapon actually has the ability to penetrate deeply enough into the earth's crust to reach and ignite one of the world’s largest oil reserves. And if Bush is allowed to set that much oil to flame, well, there is going to be enough smoke to blot out the sun for long enough that there will be much suffering and death around the world, just like it says in the Book of Revelations. But, I’m not ‘always’ one of those people who says “so it is written and so shall it be” because I truly believe that anything, literally anything, is possible in relation to the perfection of matter (Romans 8:21).

Blessings,
Bill

[Will]

exmarine said:

"My response? I made it very clear at the time that I was not really endorsing Bush, per se, but seeking the only practical way to defeat his reckless and irresponsible and treasonous opponent. There is no contradiction here. Kerry had to be defeated. Now Bush must go. America can do better."

I say we would be better off if Kerry had been elected. The worse the liberal candidate that takes office, the more people that wake up to how bad liberalism really is. You don't learn to avoid the burner on the stove by holding your finger near it, you learn, in a hurry, to avoid it by actually touch it. The people of this country are not being burned badly enough to learn to avoid the burner. (I voted for Michael Peroutka last year.)

[wmgreene]

See BUSH & CO. FACING PROSECUTION
by Sherman H. Skolnick (http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/S_284_S/Overthrow%20series/bush.htm)

Could the whole crew in the White House Iraq Working Group be charged with conspiracy?

Well, maybe not, because as of this time the posting of the ABC News Story Confirming That Indictments Are To Be Issued For Bush & Cheney, by Scott Mowry, has been removed by craigslist community!!! (http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/com/101989833.html)

And, so, does the plot thicken or what?...to be continued.

Blessings,
Bill

[bluebird]

I'm sorry Bill, as much as I would like to see Bush impeached, I cannot agree with you that John Paul II considered Bush to be the anti-christ. He was not the type to speak in those kinds of terms about anyone.

Also, I consider myself to be a devout Catholic and I remember following the Pope's opinions and observations fairly closely during the early months and years of Bush's presidency. He seemed 'hopeful' about Bush as many did in the beginning.

One thing you must understand about the Vatican that many long time Catholics already know: John Paul II was a conservative pope, a traditionalist. However, his hierarchy was very liberal. Many of the liberal cardinals 'spoke' for him particularly as he was unable to speak as much as his illness progressed. John Paul's heart was compassionate but he was no shrinking violet. He was against communism and nazism. I remember precisely when John Paul commented on Bush's going to war in Iraq. He stated all war, any war must be a just war. I took that to mean that going to war would have to serve a greater good than not going to war. This was the mandate that Bush at the time, however, I think he has squandered it.

To hear John Paul II clearly explain his just war opinion and then have others in the Vatican come along and say he was completely against the war and continue that montra, was offensive to me. John Paul II would have been for helping the oppressed Iraqi people if that were the pure motive. Now many of us have doubts as to whether Bush's motives were pure or not.

Bush's choice for Harriet Miers appalls many conservatives because she's a perfect example of his cronyism and laziness about finding someone truly qualified. Many of us are just fed up with his incompetence and excuses. That doesn't make you the antichrist, it just makes you unqualified for the job.

[wmgreene]

I'm sorry Bill, as much as I would like to see Bush impeached, I cannot agree with you that John Paul II considered Bush to be the anti-christ. He was not the type to speak in those kinds of terms about anyone.
........
One thing you must understand about the Vatican that many long time Catholics already know: John Paul II was a conservative pope, a traditionalist. However, his hierarchy was very liberal. Many of the liberal cardinals 'spoke' for him particularly as he was unable to speak as much as his illness progressed....

Hi Brenda!

The article certainly mentioned the claims of people close to the pope claim, but the article does appear to imply that it was Pope John Paul II who feared Bush is the antichrist. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880)

As I’m sure your aware, the term “Antichrist” is first used in 1 John 2:18, and is indirectly referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as the one who exalts himself to take the place of God, and this line of reasoning is the basis to the common belief that Antichrist meant “against” Christ, but I have also read quite a few articles on the subject which point out that the prefix “anti” doesn’t refer to the Latin which means “against”, but rather the term is derived from the Greek “ante” which means "to take the place of," or "in front of," or "before or prior to."

In my own statement on the subject, I said, I don’t know. I said this because although I am certainly aware of both the Greek and Latin connotations, to me the Christ is the effect to perfect matter when two or more come together in worship of God, and so, rather than a person, the anti-christ would be a complete reversal of that effect.

I personally think the man is just a figure representing the interests of himself and international investors and/or bankers, and to him war is a quote unquote “opportunity.” I use the word “opportunity” because if you will remember, in his national televised interview after the 9/11 disaster one of his statements was “this is an opportunity.”

My main concern, of course, is that the world may not come to pray for peace until after the Bunker Buster is released to ignite one of the world’s largest oil reserves, because if that is allowed to happen then many worldwide will suffer and die. When I tried to tell others about this years ago when we were at war with Iran almost no one would listen, and even the few who did listen shrugged it off with a statement like “there is no bomb that can penetrate the earth’s core to come in contact with any oil reserves”, but there is now, and that bomb is the Bunker Buster.

Blessings,
Bill

[wmgreene]

The subjects of war crimes and lawsuits against George W. Bush continues as national policies are shaped, but one must always remember that because Mr. Bush represents America the world will always see Mr. Bush’s actions as that of America:

MEDIA RELEASE: Prosecution of George W. Bush for Torture

World Exclusive
MEDIA RELEASE
October 19, 2005

Prosecution of George W. Bush for
Torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay Prisons

Notification of Canadian Officials

Lawyers against the War (L.A.W.) learned Nov 17, 2004 that George W. Bush was coming to Canada on Nov 30, 2004. During this period L.A.W. wrote to various governmental ministers advising of them that George W. Bush stood accused of the most grave crimes known to law, including torture, and therefore should be denied entry to Canada. L.A.W. notified the Prime Minister, the Immigration Minister and the Attorney General of Canada that these accusations were made by credible and knowledgeable groups and individuals throughout the world.

L.A.W. advised the Ministers that GW Bush’s responsibility derives from his direct involvement in the formulation of policy as both the President as well as the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces. They were informed that GW Bush had failed to prevent the commission of and once discovered, then failed to stop these Crimes Against Humanity through willful blindness or by deliberate policy.


L.A.W. received no reply to any of these letters and George W. Bush entered Canada on November 30th 2004.

Continued:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/3743273.html

And individuals attempt to assist:

Gail Davidson
Lawyers Against the War
Tel: +1 604 738-0338
Fax: +1 604 736-1175
Email: law@portal.ca
Website: www.lawyersagainstthewar.org


Greetings Gail Davidson:

I am writing specifically to offer my assistance to you and to all Canadian courts of competent jurisdiction.

George W. Bush is presently under formal investigation here in the USA, on suspicion of attempted murder of a foreign head of state, genocide against the peoples and the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and treason against the People of New York State and of the Commonwealths of Virginia and Pennsylvania.

The following LEGAL NOTICE was formally served upon the Counsel to the President via U.S. Mail:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/notice.of.ci.htm

A similar NOTICE was likewise served upon Alberto Gonzales:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/miranda.gonzales.htm

See also these related research articles, prepared by eyewitnesses to the historical situation in Iraq:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/beyondtorture.pdf
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/iraqecon.pdf
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/humancosts.pdf
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/bombiraq.htm

The following NOTICE OF INTENT was filed in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mariani/notice.intent.htm

We have offered our assistance to Special Prosecutor and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in this communication:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/fitzgerald.htm

We also maintain regular contact with the U.S. Coast Guard, as part of our pro bono verbal agreement to provide them with regular updates of our 9/11 homicide investigation.

That investigation did lead us to examine evidence that the Israel secret Police (Mossad) have been receiving plutonium at the Port of Amsterdam that was stolen by the Russian Mafia from former Soviet nuclear stockpiles
located in the Ural Mountains:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/thomas/pluto.txt
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/farr/farr.htm
(search latter for "yellow cake" and discussion of same)

We have since taken it upon ourselves to notify numerous local law enforcement agencies of the Mossad's modus operandi ("MO") for smuggling low-yield micro-nuclear weapons into the USA.


If my office can be of any further assistance to you or to the Courts of Canada, please contact me directly at email:

paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
-or-
mitchellpaulandrew@yahoo.com

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

As you can plainly see, the world view is taking shape. At home and abroad, Mr. Bush is being painted, and because he represents America it means the world view of America is not the bright and shining star of freedom we have been told it was from our earliest experiences. I can only pray that the worst is not yet to come, and let others see the types of things that they might not otherwise see.

Blessings,
Bill

[bluebird]

"My main concern, of course, is that the world may not come to pray for peace until after the Bunker Buster is released to ignite one of the world’s largest oil reserves, because if that is allowed to happen then many worldwide will suffer and die. When I tried to tell others about this years ago when we were at war with Iran almost no one would listen, and even the few who did listen shrugged it off with a statement like “there is no bomb that can penetrate the earth’s core to come in contact with any oil reserves”, but there is now, and that bomb is the Bunker Buster."

Bill,
I see your concern here, but at the same time, there are many things in today's world that could cause mass destruction of biblical proportions, Katrina is a good example. We are living in very trying times and for christians that means prayer, fasting and not giving into fear. I'm not saying I readily do this, but that is the right formula to maintain our peace.

We should oppose this war, I believe, on the basis that we could do better. What do I mean by that? I mean that for all the trouble that evil brings to the world, diplomacy should have been tried first, and exhausted before going to Iraq. I am not talking about negotiating with terrorists, but I am saying, as the dominant power in the world we should have been offering an olive branch instead of the resorting to the sword so quickly.

Yes, we needed to defend what happened on 9/11 but had we had a different president possibly, just possibly we could have used the event to engage the world towards effective peace talks. I believe had we had a more diplomatic president, the world would have backed him and those who commit evil attrocities upon others would have had no where to hide or propagate their violence.

But, in all honesty, I reacted like most did after 9/11 and I wanted to pursue something or someone militarily. Thankfully, I was not president. The presidency calls for cool heads and the ability to grasp the world situation and put aside your personal angst and act as a statesman following the U.S. Constitution. Following 9/11 we could have put our National Guard on duty at home and beefed up our border and ports security while extending the olive branch diplomatically on the world stage. But as you know, hind sight is always 20-20.

Back to Bush, I have come to believe that he took the "opportunity" to advance an agenda he would like to have pursued, that being removing Sadaam Hussein. All 9/11 did was give him that option in a way that would probably never have been excepted otherwise.