Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Does anyone here know what is required for Impeachment?

Yes, but Bush has kept his pants on, or so i hear. However, he's drooled all over the constitution, made a mockery of it and US. He's not wanted by the majority of Americans because of criminal activities.
Americans want him out. The majority, that is.


Barbara Streisand answers??? I dont give a hoot what she says, or what anyone else says. I'm an individual who is watching the desintegration of our country and JR. running the country into the ground.
TIME TO GET OUT.




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Agreed,

But are you aware that as low as his approval ratings are...

CONGRESS, The DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONGRESS, is at AN HISTORICAL ALL TIME LOW of 14%???

That's right, the lowest approval rating of any single person or body in the history of the Government...

So why continue to concentrate on President Bush when the American People at least approve of him 9% better than the rest of Congress?

Why not direct your hate toward the boy of people that are really at fault for any problems you may see in the country?

Just a suggestion mind you...

Semper



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The problem with trying to impeach him is that proving these accusations is insurmountably difficult because we are dealing in a constitutionally gray area.


Originally posted by dawnstar
how about treason??
Factual proof? Where are your two witnesses required by the constitution?


he chose to have a war with Iraq
So did Congress, remember.

, then proceeded to pick and chose which intelligence data he chose to use to defend such a thing to the american people.
Proof?, he made a strike at the intelligence community by blowing the cover of one of it's operatives.....and compromised the whole network she was working with...which by the way, was working on the wmd problem.Can you prove, factually, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this actually happened? At best his personal involvement is not shown, at worst there was no one ever found to have done something wrong.

Then, he ignores the advice of his top generals, the middle east experts, ect....and choses to send in far less troops than is needed to actually fill in the void that Saddam's departure created...not enough men, not enough equipement, our troops are left to be scavengers in the iraqi dump!!
His perogative. Makes him an idiot, yes, but you can't impeach on that.


He sends over a ton of money, and only god knows where it went to...
Proof? Audits?


he takes over the country...and well, leaves saddam's stashes of weapons unguarded so those who wish to fight against us can have them to use.
Where is the high crime or misdemeanor? Idiocy, yes. Crime...?


fully aware by now that there are a bunch of angry people in the world desiring to strike americans on the home soil, he refuses to enforce the current immigration laws, has half our national guard defending IRaqi soil, and want to send half of our border patrol over to do the same...
Where is the crime?


they started a war they had no intention of ever winning...thus putting alot of our servicemen and women in danger for no reason.
Proof?

the actual threat...terrorism...is not really acted on....since there is still nothing preventing them entry into this country, our borders are still wide open, our ports are still unguarded, we are literally being poisoned by the crap china's sending us.....we have enemies in the world...what shall we do....
Crime?


tell me what has the war in Iraq done, outside of open up a training ground for the terrorists to sharpen their skills on?? there is less to stop them from coming into the country than there was prior to 9/11. the flow across the border has increased!! and countries that have felt threatened by our action have taken upon themselves to make friends...with china....the one who's poisoning us, and even a few countries south of our border...who's citizens are pouring over our border!
Crime? Bad policy, yes.


there have been secret treaties with other countries, we have heard very little about.....which if you believe what has been written about them, gives up our country's sovereignty and estabishes a new money system....TREASON!!!
Proof?

Sorry that it's not cut and dry. Maybe if Congress investigated they might find something. But disagreements with policy--no matter how poorly inspired--do nothing.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
NOTHING that has been tossed out as 'impeachable' is ... nothing.

So you don't consider that, of all Loam has posted just a short distance up from your post, that there's nothing at all that constitutes a clearly defined "impeachable offense?" Much of Loam's post actually describes the official/legal definitions of "high crimes & misdemeanors" as described in the Constitution, but still your opinion is that nothing posted in this thread has been covered by that definition?
Or did you skip over Loam's post entirely?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
3 - 'do not represent republican values'?? Who cares if they do or not?
Your 'question' makes no sense.

Apparently, The People care if the Government holds "Republican values," because all Government Office Holders are sworn by legally binding Constitutional Oath to keep a Republican form of Government.
When was the last time you've even read the Constitutiuon & the Bill of Rights anyway? Here, I'll make it a bit easier for you to do so:
1: US Constitutuion.net
2: From Pushing Hamburger
3: If that's not enough, just run a Google quicksearch on "US Constitution" & you'll find pages & pages of links...Many of which are held by Law schools & Government Offices.

While you're reading, just take a good hard look at Bush's track record: Keep in mind also that one of the Executive's primary Constitutional Duties is to "faithfully execute the laws" of the land & then ask yourself why Bush is keeping our borders open to invasion: Note that it's a civilian invasion I refer to, but that makes it no less of an invasion on US soil. Failure to enforce Immigration Laws...In fact, Bush has openly refused to enforce them. Even more, as the failed Immigration Bill was going through Congress, Bush had told Congress that he wouldn't enforce Immigration Law unless the Bill was passed! Not only failing to enforce the current Law, Bush tried using his Enforcement Power as "leverage" against Congress!

Originally posted by dawnstar
if we want them out of office, well...
find the secretary that types up these 1000 page bills...we each pay her $5 to $10 for throwing in a few extra lines...
those lines would...
remove the president, and his staff, along with the legislators from office for failure to do their job!!
...etc.
Heh! Good point...After all, that's how Bush got the Patriot Act through Congress.

This is something that Bush should not be enforcing is the Patriot Act: It did not enjoy the full of "due process" (since he didn't even give them time to read it, let alone debate or deliberate before voting), but also because "Congress shall pass no law" that abridges Citizens' 1st Amendment Rights (which is what the whole of the Patriot Act does anyway). Congress failed in its Duty by not repealing (or more acurately, annulling) the Patriot Act after its contents became known! To even add to that Congressional failure is that they also passed related, subsequent legislation that also violates Constitutional writ! It seems to me that if Bush gets Impeached, it should also follow that much of Congress & the Juduciary needs impeachment also...

In truth, Bush has not lived up to his Constitutiuonal Oath in any way shap or form & has in fact been intrumental in constant/consistent violations of the Constitution ever since he first occupied the White House. If this is not concidered, in your opinion, to be "impeachable offenses," then what would you consider to be "impeachable?"

Originally posted by FlyersFan

there have been secret treaties with other countries, gives up our country's sovereignty and estabishes a new money system....TREASON!!!

What secret treaties? What new money system?

I suggest you start researching about the proposed North American Union...Bush & a select few (a couple of Congressmen, but mostly Corporate bigwigs) have been trying to push for the NAU by "going around" the rest of the Government to lay down the basic infrastructure. In effect, by "laying the NAU foundation" first, its indicates that Bush wants to ram it down everyone's throats after it's too late to determine if it's even legal or Constitutional (which it's not)!
Such a multi-national Union will effectively destroy the soveriegnty of each nation involved, being subsumed by the "charter" of the Union itself. Bing! No more Constitution that the Government has to obey! Wouldn't "destruction of national sovereignty" & "suspending the Constitution" constitute charges of Treason?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

f you wish to say something stupid by implying all liberals are socialist, then I will make a rebutal just as ignorant and stupid and say, all conservatives marry their sisters.


And here you have it folks...

The word stupid, directed at me, is used in the same sentence as the misspelled word REBUTTAL...

Perfect example of the emotional reactions/actions that is driving this thread and the complete lack of reason...

Thank you

Semper


Well, I really don't check my spelling. You may, but one spelling error will happen every once in a while, and to say it dosn't, well, you must be perfect then my friend.

Yes, my post was directed at you, the word stupid however wasn't. You claimed that the downfall of America would be putting liberals in office, and as I said before, thats clearly ignorant, along with all liberals are socialists. I even used my comment to say that your comment was JUST AS ignorant as mine. You clearly started the "emotions" of this thread by attacking liberals, which dosn't benifit this thread in anyway. Verbally attacking a group of people is merely asking for a fight.

-Reform America



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Or did you skip over Loam's post entirely?

I posted that in response to someone else's post before LOAMs.. If you look 2 posts down from that you will see that I gave loam an atta'boy and said it was a great post and we should discuss his post in depth.

Guess YOU skipped over that part entirely, eh??? :shk:


Apparently, The People care if the Government holds "Republican values,"

In your nasty attempt to try to ridicule my post, you missed the fact that I was responding to a PERSONAL ATTACK about MY alleged 'towing of the Republican line'. The discussion had nothing to do with how the country is run as a republic.

Guess YOU skipped over that part entirely, eh? :shk:


When was the last time you've even read the Constitutiuon & the Bill of Rights anyway?

Not that it's any of your business, but there is a poster copy of it hanging on the wall to my left. This computer is in our old homeschool room. I had to teach the basics for homeschooling.


Here, I'll make it a bit easier for you to do so:

Grow up.


then ask yourself why Bush is keeping our borders open to invasion:

I already highlighted that from the previous post as a viable discussion.
Guess YOU skiipped right over that as well, eh? :shk:


I suggest you start researching about the proposed North American Union....Bush ....trying to push for the NAU

The North American Union has been in the works for decades. It isn't a Bush invention. If you want to base impeachment on the North American Union, then you would have to have impeached all the way back to Ronald Reagan.



[edit on 7/8/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
were the actions taken by the preceeding presidents out in the public view? was congress and the public aware of their actions? I think they were. I think I remember discussions on them while the events were taking place, detailed discussions...

now, we have even the senators asking questions about what the heck is going on with it. there should be an in depth, pretty lengthy discussion before we just go ahead and cede our powers over to a new entity, don't ya think? why the secrecy?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
were the actions taken by the preceeding presidents out in the public view?

Yes. There was a lot of open discussion of it during the 1992 presidential campaign. It had been going on for quite some time prior to that.

before we just go ahead and cede our powers over to a new entity, don't ya think?

I think you are talking about the NWO? Yes? Or something else?

why the secrecy?

I can't follow you. You already said that the actions taken by preceeding presidents were in the public view, but now you are talking about secrecy? Sincerely, I can't follow. Please explain.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Agreed,

But are you aware that as low as his approval ratings are...

CONGRESS, The DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONGRESS, is at AN HISTORICAL ALL TIME LOW of 14%???



Semper
I'm well aware and we have no one to turn to for justice.
I have always said the Democratic party is just an "illusion"- Good Cop, Bad Cop type of thing.
We are alone.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   



According to WorldNetDaily.com (North American Activists Plotted Stealth Strategy, January 30, 2007), “Participants in a high-level, closed door, three-day conference on the integration of the three North American nations debated whether openness about goals was preferred to a stealthy policy of building infrastructure before a vision of the end result was even laid out to the people of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, according to notes obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.”

Quoting WorldNetDailey.com, “At least one attendee of the conference said the meeting was intended to subvert the democratic process. Mel Hurtig, a Canadian author and publisher elected as the leader of the National Party of Canada, told WND last fall the idea of the North American Forum is to move the countries toward integration without public consent or even knowledge.

"What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries," he said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye."

www.wethepeoplefoundation.org...




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

I'm well aware and we have no one to turn to for justice.
I have always said the Democratic party is just an "illusion"- Good Cop, Bad Cop type of thing.
We are alone.


More and more I agree with you DG...

Sad state of affairs...

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Grow up.


"Personal attack ... against ATS rules. (and unwarrented ... and obnoxious .. YOU are derailing. )"

Again, take your own "advice" to heart.


The North American Union has been in the works for decades. It isn't a Bush invention.


While there has been discussion on how to make North American trade "easier"; none of our previous Presidents have been quite so underhanded about signing various international agreements behind Congress' back. The "Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)", "Declaration of Quebec City", and the establishment of the "Transatlantic Economic Council" all work together in threatening the sovranty of the U.S., and our Constitution (which he took oath to protect).


Source

President Bush signed an agreement creating a "permanent body" that commits the U.S. to "deeper transatlantic economic integration," without ratification by the Senate as a treaty or passage by Congress as a law.



Source

While several members of Congress have denied any knowledge of efforts to build "NAFTA superhighways" or move America closer to a union with Mexico and Canada, four members of the House have stepped up to sponsor a resolution opposing both initiatives.

The resolution introduced by Goode had three co-sponsors: Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Walter Jones, R-N.C.



Source

"This is all being done by the executive branch below the radar," Corsi told WND. "If President Bush had told the American people in the 2004 presidential campaign that his goal was to create a North American union, he would not have carried a single red state."

The president, Corsi maintains, has charged the bureaucracy to form a North American union "through executive fiat ... without ever disclosing his plans directly to the American people or to Congress."


Note that Corsi holds a PhD in political science (from Harvard no less), and, among other things, co-authored Unfit for Command; a book that was considered instrumental in the re-election Bush (who was the other author involved... none other than John O'Neill; a name that should "ring a few bells" around here).

Add all of that with his constant refusals to cooperate with any Congressional investigations (during both "Republican", and "Democtatic" majorities).


Source

The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.

Even Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, objected when administration officials who were not part of the president's staff said they could not testify about communications with the White House.


Regarding 9/11, Bush & Cheny refused to testify under oath; and they only agreed to meet with the 9/11 Commission if they were together (not independently), and under the condition that it was "off the record" (ie: non-public, and without any transcript taken).


Source

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have cut a deal to "meet with the commissioners" together. They will most certainly not "testify." They will not be under oath.


He also refused to let aids take oath regarding the attorney firings.


Source

President Bush set the stage for a political and legal showdown with Congress when he vowed Tuesday that his top aides will not testify under oath before congressional committees on the scandal involving the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.


This administration refuses to testify under oath regarding anything, and it looks like they have a serious fear regarding any testimony given under oath (which is a completely irrational fear as long as they have nothing to hide).

Toss in the handling of Iraq (intelligence leading up to, and the operation itself), and then the V.P.'s current refusal to release various documents for Congressional review (claiming that his office doesn't fall under the Executive branch while he still expects Congressional "Executive funding" as if he were a part of it), and I think that this administration is clearly guilty of dishonorable conduct, and a breach in the public trust (the actual qualifications for 'high crimes and misdemeanors').

Once we add the Libby commutation; Bush is also chargable under Madison's qualifications of; "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

There is clearly a preponderance of evidence, and options to choose from, with which to bring forth impeachment proceedings. It's just a matter of who has the desire to do so.


Originally posted by semperfortis
But are you aware that as low as his approval ratings are...

CONGRESS, The DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONGRESS, is at AN HISTORICAL ALL TIME LOW of 14%?


Keep in mind that the main reason Congressional approval is so low is that the Democratic majority was elected under the false guise that they would actually take steps to curb the rampant corruption, and complete lack of accountability, occurring within the Executive branch. As of yet; there has been very little action, and even fewer results, in such efforts. :shk:

[edit on 7/8/07 by redmage]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
So FF and everyone else saying its ok for Bush to torture American Citizens because Hitler tortured American citizens..

So... Since another president pardoned people it makes it ok for Bush to pardon his crony?

Gee, FDR nuked two cities and didn't get in trouble, I guess I can nuke Houston and Dallas and not get in trouble. What? FDR did it before me and didn't get in trouble.

I guess I can kill anyone I want since Ted Bundy(Republican, worked for them) and Ike and George H.W. Bush killed People. Sure Ike was a general and GHWB was in the air force but hey, they still killed people and got away with it. So I guess I can to.

See how stupid that sounds? That's exactly how all you Bush Bots sound when you pull the "But Clinton did something about a third as bad! SO its ok for Bush!" Or what I really love is when they do the "Clinton wanted to do it so its ok for Bush TO do it!" Like wait, he WANTED to do something so that makes it ok for Bush to do something? So since some guy wanted to kill Rupert Murdoch that makes it ok for me to kill him?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
A ridiculous nonsensical argument LS, and the exact same one everyone was ignoring on the other thread..


The Presidential power to pardon has absolutely no relationship to murder or any other thing you may dream up.

It is obvious from your post that you are driven by emotion and that logic is useless, however it is logic that is clear here.

After investigation after investigation, there have been no findings to bring impeachment charges, so none have been brought, and none will be.

His pardoning and commuting is perfectly legal, has been set by precedent in EVERY administration and been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Your analogy to any criminals past or present has nothing to do with anything and are a direct representation of your emotional involvement.

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Some interesting information to consider..


So claims a poll from the American Research Group:

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

7/5/07 Favor
All Adults 45%

The survey is however NOT reflective of the American electorate. As with most polls, it relies heavily on the ‘independent’ response to swing results one way or another. Republicans accounted for a mere 29% of the 1,100 responses gathered. Expectedly, 86% of Republicans oppose impeachment proceedings of Bush.

UPDATE: An ABC News poll conducted only 120 days or so ago on the same premise finds:

…Only 28 percent of Americans favor impeachment…

One of these polls is not like the other, and in such a short time frame, it’s difficult to recently conclude that both polls are accurate on their faces, and that any sitting President has lost so much ground in a mere 5 months.

UPDATE: I’m fully aware I’m “spinning” the results of this poll. I suppose my point is: let ‘em try. It’s a hip pipe dream to talk Bush impeachment… it’s like the iPhone of progressive ‘thought’. It’s one thing for the American people to say it, and another for it to happen.

… and another for Democrats in congress to get their collective act together for long enough to pull it off…
scottfuller.net...


Exactly what I expected.

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Exactly what I expected.


Care to elaborate? What did you "expect"; that a conservative blogger/podcaster would try to put a "spin" on poll results?

As to this:

The survey is however NOT reflective of the American electorate. As with most polls, it relies heavily on the ‘independent’ response to swing results one way or another.


That's just blatant spin. Independents swing both polls and elections; yet he acts as if they don't vote at all. As long as this was a random poll; the ‘independent’ portion should still be fairly representative of the U.S. population when it comes to non-partisan public opinion, and the poll already shows numbers for "All Adults" vs. that of "Registered Voters".

As to this section:

One of these polls is not like the other, and in such a short time frame, it’s difficult to recently conclude that both polls are accurate on their faces, and that any sitting President has lost so much ground in a mere 5 months.


I don't think that such a sudden spike is difficult to believe at all. One poll occurred before the Libby Commutation, and the other occurred afterwards. That single action was a proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for many people from both sides of the aisle. We're also begining to see the ineffectiveness of the "troop surge" plan that was billed as the "give me one more chance to improve the Iraq situation 'my way'"; so that's likely backlashing against Bush/Cheney as well.

Add in the fact that this "source" is Scott Fuller's blog (with a blatantly conservative bias), and it's quite clear that he would rally against the results of this recent poll. I would expect quite a similar response if you were to quote a blog by Limbaugh; although, I would be interested to see Fuller's response if he were able to separate his bias and look at things objectively.

Actually, I can find no reference to any of Fuller's "credentials" at all. He merely holds the opinion that he finds the polls hard to believe, but I can't find anything that would give that opinion substance, or credibility; especially since he doesn't back it up with any evidence of "factual flaws" in the polling process. Does he hold a degree in political sience, one relating to statistical analysis, or a degree in sociology?

[edit on 7/8/07 by redmage]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
That's just blatant spin. Independents swing both polls and elections; yet he acts as if they don't vote at all. As long as this was a random poll; the ‘independent’ portion should still be fairly representative of the U.S. population when it comes to non-partisan public opinion, and the poll already shows numbers for "All Adults" vs. that of "Registered Voters".
I agree with you. These comments are nonsensical. If he was going to critique the poll itself, he would be better off noting that 38% of the people surveyed identified as Democrats, which I don't think is accurate. But surveying Independents is essential in political polling and you can't just exclude them willy-nilly.


As to this section:

One of these polls is not like the other, and in such a short time frame, it’s difficult to recently conclude that both polls are accurate on their faces, and that any sitting President has lost so much ground in a mere 5 months.

I don't think that such a sudden spike is difficult to believe at all. One poll occurred before the Libby Commutation, and the other occurred afterwards. That single action was a proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for many people from both sides of the aisle.
I disagree. I don't think most people have any idea who Scooter is, other than a Muppet. Either that, or they falsely think that Libby leaked the name, which is categorically not true.

Actually, I can find no reference to any of Fuller's "credentials" at all. He merely holds the opinion that he finds the polls hard to believe, but I can't find anything that would give that opinion substance, or credibility; especially since he doesn't back it up with any evidence of "factual flaws" in the polling process. Does he hold a degree in political sience, one relating to statistical analysis, or a degree in sociology?
[edit on 7/8/07 by redmage]
As someone who holds degrees in two of those three, I can say that Fuller's analysis is more than a little wanting.

[edit on 7/9/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
semperfortis

The problem is that you seem hung up on defending the legality of the President's commutation power. That, in my view, is not the issue and should remain generally unquestioned...

What is at the heart of this debate, however, is whether the exercise of that power under these circumstances is evidence of the intent to hide wrongdoing.

When I have more time, I'll be glad to walk you through how obvious that question is in this case.



[edit on 9-7-2007 by loam]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
What is at the heart of this debate, however, is whether the exercise of that power under these circumstances is evidence of the intent to hide wrongdoing.
I don't think it is. If it was, he would have pardoned him before all the evidence came out in trial. No new evidence will come out on appeal.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I keep hearing the comparison between Bush needing to be impeached and Clinton having been impeached.....


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Clinton impeached for obstruction of justice?.... And isn't that what Bush is trying to protect.. Obstruction of Justice?


What's wrong with that picture?


As far as Bush needing to be impeached... or impeachable actions?...

Breaking the oath of office is suffice for me. He swore to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution. Of which he's done nothing of the such. Can you show me how he has?

How he hasn't...

The Constitution provides every American Citizen with specific freedoms that cannot be taken away.... hence "inalienable".

1) Military Commissions Act - Takes away habeas corpus. Each citizen can be labeled an unlawful enemy combatant... of which you cannot challenge your rightful (or not) detainment. You're guilty until proven innocent, of which you'll never have the chance.

2) USA Patriot Act - Potentially labels every American citizen a domestic terrorist. Again, guilty until proven innocent... as long as you "obey". That's not the free people that the Constitution born.

3) John Warner National Defense - Gives the President the ability to utilize the Armed Forces within our Nations borders as prevented by the Posse Comitatus Act. None the less, he's got his "red carpet" to declare martial law. Under Martial Law, there's no return to the Constitution.

4) Warrantless Wiretapping Program - Breaks down the 4th Amendment by invading your personal lives... again you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. We're further protected with FISA... of which is out the _

5) Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act - The real id act... This is America. We're free to live as just that... free. With this Bill, you're now to "show me your papers" as in a communist country.. of which the Constitution did not provide we're to answer as if prisoners of this country.

and finally.... something that hasn't been mentioned, unless I overlooked it...


6) The workings of the Formation of the North American Union.... which will completely dissolve the US Constitution.



Now, before I get flamed for pointing these items out... Bush isn't the only perpetrator against out Constitution. Over half of those that are in Congress and those that are in the Judicial Branch are just as responsible.

We not only need to impeach Bush, but flush our Congressional Representatives and our Judicial Branch and return this Nation to it's rightful owners. The American people.





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join