Viewer Email -- Drum beat begins: Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment

McCaffery file. 12/16/2006

Priceless Viewer E-Mail

Bush’s abrogation of the Bill of Rights makes perfect sense in the War on Terror. Since terrorist hate us for our freedoms, if we get rid of our freedoms, they won’t hate us anymore. We’ll all be the same, and peace will then prevail. See how simple it is?
Norma
Richmond, CA

Bush has no such authority. He has simply made a mockery of everything
America used to stand for. Is it Impeachment time yet?
Fred
Auburn, NY

The fact that the President of the United States authorized spying on its very own citizens should send chills down the spines of every person in this country. When this president took office, he swore to uphold the Constitution. He has not done so. He should be impeached.
Linda
Newport News, VA

An encouraging drum beat begins:

Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment. . .

"Bush’s abrogation of the Bill of Rights makes perfect sense in the War on Terror. Since terrorist hate us for our freedoms, if we get rid of our freedoms, they won’t hate us anymore. We’ll all be the same, and peace will then prevail. See how simple it is?"

Lol. Priceless. I needed that.

Helderheid posted that very thing yesterday. :) Or is Norma Helderheid?

Actually, it wasn't Helderheid,but she posted something just as good. I swear I read this on DU yesterday, though!

marching in the streets against BushCo. :evilgrin:

are heading out to hunt down Mable Brown, 78, a Walmart greeter who had a moments lapse and wished a shopper "Happy Holidays" instead of " Merry Christmas".

Or even briefly and to the point email our representatives with a simple message.

Call for Impeachment or be held accountable.

Often, people don't act because they think they need to be able to make a long drawn out case.

There is a place for longer cases -- in dialogs with decision makers (and some talking points for such dialogs are posted here) -- only some of will be sitting down with our elected representatives and their staffers. One way communication MUST BE simple.

This doesn't just apply to Impeachment. It applies to our rejection of voting machines -- any effort really. (For voting machines, you don't really need more than: I don't want to vote on those new machines. I don't trust them. What are you going to do about it???!!)

Accusation is powerful too:

They said we should fear "mushroom clouds...in forty-five minutes." (Read it again.) This is called "terrorism"--in the form of a bomb threat.

On the center/left, we are hestitant to make blanket accusations. We don't just say what we want. We think we must make nuanced cases. We need to get over that reluctance if we want to be heard.

or set precedent that ANY President is above the law.

They MUST impeach Bush and uphold the rule of law
or they will grant the democratic president
(who is coming soon) unlimited and unchecked power.


Hey that may not be a bad thing .. hahhahahahha

I'll have to throw that out there in my ongoing battle on another forum.

A nitpick.

It should not be "They MUST impeach Bush. . ."

The House acts as the prosecutor in an Impeachment, and our leaders have bigger megaphones through with to demand action, but it is the body of the people; We who will and must Impeach Bush-Cheney and purge their criminal syndicate from power. (The later is probably the tougher part).

There is a reason We have given the House the power to act as prosecutor in an Impeachment.

The House is the body closest and most representative of the Sovereigns here. You know. The ones who "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We the People. Us. You. Me. Our Parents. Our Grandparents. All those who have fought for (and resisted) our march to a more perfect union.

That little word "for", means a lot.

"We the People" have given to the united States, and not that the States or the National Government has given to "We the People". It is "We the People", the Sovereign Citizens, who must, through our efforts and responsibilities, secure this Charter of Liberty, Freedom and for Responsible Government for All Future Generations.

The authority of government lies entirely and irrevocably within the Body of The Whole, "We The People".

:)

:kick:

Let's start the faxes!

When they get back on January 3rd, let them be met with a mountain of them.

There's no way there'll even be hearings in the House as long as the Neocon Death-Cult's Legislative Pig-Pack is in charge. (:loveya: Marc Maron.) What we need to be doing now is turning up the heat on the media and getting the word out there. All the politicos (Dems included) need to feel this is something huge numbers of people are demanding.

In a corporate controlled country like ours, the people's wishes don't have much significance. It is extremely unlikely that Bush will be impeached, just as it failed to happen in Reagan's case in spite of all the Iran-Contra scandal. They even wanted to put him on Mount Rushmore - yikes!

Please people, pay attention to this. Our only hope in getting out of the mess we are in is democracy! Democracy is government by the people. We, the people, are sovereign, not our elected officials according to our Constitution.

If we enact the National Initiative for Democracy, we can make a recall election for any public official - including the President - any time we wish. We, the people, need to formalize our sovereign law making power. Let's do it!

I'm all for reminding people that they are the Sovereigns, but the power is ours to exercise. NOW. We don't need to do anything to formalize our rightful role (Of course, we, as a body, can enact anything we want, including initiative and referendum as a mechanism for change).

I worry that an emphasis on "formalizing" a right we already have gives power to the notion that don't have the power.

Also, a couple comments on your assertion that it "is extremely unlikely that Bush will be impeached."

I'm sure it is not your intention, but that assertion can block action.

We have developed a terrible and counterproductive habit of deciding whether or not to act based on "conventional wisdom" regarding the probability of success (conventional wisdom that is usually 100% wrong).

Of course, this terrible habit reinforces itself. People don't fight for something because "it's futile." The something never happens because people aren't fighting, "proving" the futility.

Conventional wisdom assured us (even mockingly) that we would never get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. No mainstream good government entity even considered fighting to make it happen. They were too busy whipping themselves for losing, when Kerry had in fact won. Citizen lobbyists took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

Had they acted sooner, who knows? We might have inaugurated President Kerry on January 20th, 2004. And acting "sooner" could have been as early as December 12, 2000. Who knows? We might have inaugurated President Gore on January 20th, 2001.

There are so many other examples.

We like to think of ourselves as reasonable people, but it is not reasonable to guarantee failure with the notion "can't be done, so don't try." That only makes sense if you believe in your own omniscience.

It is time to be truly reasonable and spend our time acting. Even when we don't think anything will work, we must still act on principle.

You make good points about a negative attitude. But I think you overreacted somewhat to my statements that you consider negative.

History has shown us how hard impeachment of a president is; it very seldom happens. that's a simple fact.

But if we enact the National Initiative for Democracy, we have the capability to recall (legally) any president at any time. I don't know what state you live in, but most states don't have initiatives, referendums or recalls by the people. We need that capability! But no one is going to just give it to us. It is naive to think we could currently place a national initiative on a government national election ballot. Try it and see.

We must enact the National Initiative ourselves! And we need to do it soon!

I didn't intend to be adversarial. The pressing need to push through the "futility" barrier may drive me to come on too strong at times.

Here are some additional thoughts on your proposal and a couple general observations.

Re: Impeachment vs. Recall

When evaluating an alternative action or approach, the question is: Does it is get us what we are after?

Impeachment is a prosecution. Crimes are exposed. Damages are defined. Crimes committed by people in positions of power have devastating and far reaching consequences that we cannot even begin to remedy or rectify until the crimes and the damages are publicly, and thoroughly, aired.

Punishment of the perpetrators is a critical component of holding them accountable.

Impeachment is about more than removal from office.

When someone is shooting into a crowd, the most urgent action is to disarm or stop them. Disarming is a necessary protective action, but justice demands more: investigation, prosecution, and punishment or redress.

For the Bush-Cheney syndicate, power is the gun. We must disarm them, but that is just the beginning.

Recall removes them from power (disarms them) and stops there. It doesn't bring the perpetrators to justice.

Since it doesn't accomplish the same ends, recall cannot serve as a replacement action for Impeachment.

Re: "...formalizing our sovereign law-making power"

Our sovereignty is not something that we can lose. We can fail to exercise or recognize it, but we cannot lose it.

Our sovereignty is not just expressed through electoral politics and legislative change; it is expressed in the public square. The political will to solve a common problem is driven by the actions of people – not just voting, but showing up at meetings, showing up in the offices of our elected officials, speaking out in the public square, talking to neighbors, and so on.

Establishing a common understanding of our rightful role as sovereigns is really all that is needed to formalize "our sovereign law-making power." Each person who shares that common understanding is an agent of change.

Theoretically, initiative, referendum, and recall procedures give people more direct control, but in practice, I'm not convinced that these processes constitute a fundamental change in the landscape.

Ultimately, it is public pressure that drives all change. With or without recall procedures, resignations can be forced through public pressure alone. In practice, building the political will to pass a national initiative may not be very different from building the political will to pass a constitutional amendment.

------- General Observations -------

Although you didn't explicitly assert the "Can't happen, so don't try" rationalization, it is between the lines when you express your assessment of the chances (small) and offer an alternate action.

There are strong reasons to "nip in the bud" any form of the notion that "We'll never Impeach Bush-Cheney, so we shouldn't waste our time trying to."

This type of rationalization is perhaps the biggest barrier to action we face on the center/left. It is very deeply ingrained. Over and over we allow appeals to "practicality" and "realism" immobilizes us. One of the primary reasons Democrats are viewed as wimps is their failure to "fight the good fights," come what may.

The reactionary right doesn't allow themselves to be blocked in the smae way. Not long ago the "conventional wisdom" was that popular support would never allow Roe v. Wade to be overturned. They went full-steam ahead anyway and look how far they have gotten.

In our part of the spectrum, we get angry at people for being disengaged at the same time we are promoting their immobility with pronouncements of futility. We need to STOP IT!

People have a need to be effective. They have a need to ACT. No matter how small we think our chances for success are, we must go for the BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals).

Even if the ultimate goal is not achieved, there are ALWAYS wins and benefits along the way, not the least of which is simply engaging people in a common endeavor. (If you want people to get hooked on action, just meet their need to be effective by celebrating the interim achievements -- e.g., tracking the number of previously disengaged people we are involving).

Some call it confidence; some call it faith. The label doesn't matter if we understand how powerful it is to act from the knowledge that anything is possible.

Don't be so sure that we can't lose our sovereignty. We have already lost some of our rights with the Patriot Act and other laws. If we continue to let them go, we will lose everything. We must make our sovereignty formal by coding it into our Constitution in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.

You have misunderstood me about impeachment. Although I didn't say so, I do think impeachment is a good idea. In fact I signed the impeachment petition. But the recall would be a faster way to get a crook out of office if we had the National Initiative. Indictments could be issued later.

Giving the people the power to make law is not a fundamental change in the landscape? How many laws are the people making today? Come on Pat! This will be the most significant political change in the history of the world!

Many people simply do not think about what is going on beyond their own lives in their own neighborhoods. They do not watch or read the news. Election ballots that actually include issues relevant to everyone will attract their attention. Then they will gain political will - as you say.

You say, "In our part of the spectrum, we get angry at people for being disengaged at the same time we are promoting their immobility with pronouncements of futility. We need to STOP IT!" That's exactly what the National Initiative provides - an indisputable way for the people to be heard, and heard loudly!

The biggest, hairiest, most audacious goal of all is the National Initiative for Democracy! This will make the bad guys take notice in a big way!

We cannot lose our sovereignty because there is no external entity that can take that power away.

"We the People… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We the People. Us. You. Me. Our Parents. Our Grandparents. All those who have fought for (and resisted) our march to a more perfect union.

We are the creators, this government our creation. Legitimate government authority lies entirely and irrevocably within the Body of The Whole, "We The People. " Any action rooted in legitimate government authority is of our creation.

There will always be those who believe that the righteousness of their cadre justifies any action required to gain and wield power over the Body of The Whole. For these fascists, "We the People" means "We the 'Right' People; We the Powerful and Superior." They believe great wealth and power is the natural reward for their superiority, and that any avenue that yields their rightful rewards is open for their exploitation.

Although their efforts to take power may be successful for a time, their actions cannot take away the sovereignty vested in the body of the people. Even when “We the People” appear to submit to illegitimate authority because we do not recognize our power to nullify it, our power is not lost. The power is retained, available to be exercised at any time.

Dorothy had the power to return home all along.

The fascists always make the same mistake. Because they do not recognize the bounds of legitimate authority, they have no qualms about operating outside those boundaries as they purse their agenda. Inevitably, they expose themselves as rogues. When the people understand they have the power to do so, by any means necessary, they purge the rogues.

WRT the theoretical power of national I&R and the practical operation of it, I didn’t say it would not change the landscape. I said I wasn’t convinced that it necessarily would (or does). I've lived in CA and WA. I’ve lived in NJ. I’ve been involved in politics in all three states. I’ve seen the initiative and referendum process hijacked and the electorate manipulated to vote against their interests. I've seen the will of the people effectively expressed without it. The nature of the mechanisms through which we express our power certainly can make differences, but a far greater difference is made when citizens simply recognize and exercise the power they have always, and will always, have.

On the point of sovereignty, yes, our Constitution currently gives the people sovereignty. But if fascism continues unabated in the USA as it did in 1930s Germany, sovereignty can be lost. We both agree that it is up to the people. But fascist propaganda is extremely powerful once they control the media. When the people don't know what is really going on, they are in trouble. This is especially true as the government becomes more secretive!

Your experience with initiative and referendum laws is really not a good judgment on the NI4D proposal. Those state laws did nothing to eliminate overwhelming anti-social (corporate) propaganda from controlling an election. NI4D eliminates that problem completely by criminalizing PAC or corporate money from all elections. Only individuals would be allowed to contribute to a campaign. This would equalize the playing field.

How I see it:

Our sovereignty is rooted the following principles:

=> Government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

=> Government exists for the interests of the Governed.

Our Government is both a concept and the physical manifestation of that concept.

As a concept, our government is an entity defined by our guiding principles. As a physical manifestation of those guiding principles, our Government is the public institutions we create to enable us to exercise our power, solve our common problems, and protect our interests.

The concept of "our government" transcends the physical manifestation and serves as a corrective force when the form deviates from the ideal.

As the creators and the stakeholders, we ARE the government. The power to shape our government to meet our needs resides solely and irrevocably with us; the governed; We the People.

Internalizing the concept "We are the Government" can be difficult, particularly when we vehemently object to some of the actions we have taken as a people. When our public institutions are under siege or become dysfunctional, it is easy to become disconnected from the reality of our sovereignty.

---------------------------------------
Although the different ways you and I conceptualize sovereignty are probably operationally equivalent in many aspects, I think there is a key operational difference:

A person's understanding of our collective sovereignty affects their ability to defend against fascist propaganda and serve as an agent of change.

If sovereignty is something that can be taken away by an external entity, it is tough to feel very powerful.

When people think "the law" (as an external entity, rather than an institution we shape to serve our will) or "the fascist power structure" can take away their sovereignty, they are more likely to feel helpless when they are confronted with propaganda that invokes a fascist view of the law, or when fascists get their hands on our public institutions.

People who understand the operation of their government is subject to THEIR authority; their sovereignty, feel powerful. When confronted with a fascist take over, a sovereign citizen is better equipped to distinguish them (fascist power) from us (We the People, fighting to establish public institutions that enable us exercise our power, solve our common problems, and protect our interests). When sovereignty is conceptualized as an attribute that CANNOT be taken away, it serves as a defense against fascist propaganda.

--------------------------------
I hope the following discussion of the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida will make the ideas I’m trying to express clearer.

In Florida 2000, every "official" tally of the votes left out about 175,000 ballots. The NORC review found that 25,000 of the uncounted ballots contained perfectly valid votes. A count of those votes favored Gore 52/48. The inferior equipment used in some areas had invalidated at least 150,000 votes, but simple extrapolation, even using the most conservative estimates (i.e., most favorable to Bush) gave the election to Gore by at least 30,000 votes -- a number that does not even take into account the butterfly "Jews for Buchannan" ballot and other problems that were known to have resulted in Gore votes being misallocated or lose.

The intent of the Florida voters was clear and the Republicans knew it. We know they knew it because none of their arguments appealed to reality. Instead, all their arguments invoked legal technicality as a force that trumped reality.

In reality, the law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We the People, through our representatives, have defined our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. A person who has a firm grasp of our collective sovereignty, knows these truths to be self-evident.

When enough of us firmly grasp our rightful role, attempts to nullify reality, and thwart the will of the people by appealing to legal technicality, are rejected out of hand.

The way people talk about our government these days exposes the degree to which it is viewed as an alien force, rather than something of our own creation.

In 2000, people across the nation watched the events unfolding in Florida with horror, knowing something was seriously wrong, but what could they do? If the law said those votes could be tossed out, it can’t be helped. Aren’t we a nation of laws? Sure, when we allow those votes to be thrown away, we are throwing away the expression of our will, but we must follow the letter of the law, reality be damned.

Even people who denounced what they saw unfolding failed to cut through the propaganda. They talked about the rights of the candidates, not the rights of the ONLY real stakeholders, We the People. They got trapped maneuvering deadlines and contest statutes.

And all the while, reality was staring them in the face.

I know the executive branch is currently occupied rogues. I know the damage they are doing. When they took power without our consent on January 20, 2001, they put our Constitution into breach. As long as they continue to hold power, our Government is not operating as our guiding principles intended. But, actions taken by illegitimate authority ultimately carry no legitimacy. They can piss all over the Constitution, but that cannot change the fact of our sovereignty; it cannot affect the concept of our Government as it should be. We are not their victims. We are the avengers.

I'm guessing you may be weary of these lengthy posts. If so, please understand, this discussion (in so far as an Internet exchange can be a discussion) touches on fundamental truths that have serious implications.

Although it may not sound like it, I'm not arguing against NI4D. My top priority is Impeachment, and my efforts are going there, but I'm all for BHAGs that capture and engage people.

The concerns I'm expressing are restricted to the framing. NI4D is offered to solve a problem. It is it is the way that problem is framed that makes me uncomfortable – messages like:

sovereignty can be lost
In a corporate controlled country like ours, the people's wishes don't have much significance

As I've described, in my view is that 1) sovereignty is an inherent attribute we cannot lose; and 2) the notion that it can be lost tends to promote helplessness, not power and action.

WRT to the significance of our wishes. Even in its current dysfunctional form, the people’s wishes have enormous impact in shaping our common policies and public institutions. The problem is not so much that our government is not able to hear us, it is. If it was not responsive, the elements that are out for their private advantage (common good be damned) would not expend so much effort on manipulating public opinion.

As long as NI4D is tied to "restoring" or "establishing" or "formalizing" our sovereignty (something we already have and can't lose) it will be problematic for me. Before I jump on the NI4D bus, I would need to change that framing and satisfy myself that the effort dovetails with other efforts that help people grab and exercise the power that is already in their hands.

-------------------------------
Note: I have a similar difficultly with Jesse Jackson, Jr's "Right to Vote" Constitutional Amendment.

Our right to vote for our elected officials is embodied in the sole principle on which we founded our Constitution – the principle of consent. Our right to chose our elected official by surveying the will of the people in an election, is absolute. Offering a constitutional amendment to "formalize" this right accepts the bogus premise we don't already have the right.

SCOTUS took a shot at undermining our right to vote in Bush v. Gore. Offering a Constitutional Amendment to correct a "problem" they invented, accepts their twisted and Un-Constitutional reasoning. As long as that Amendment is out there, unpassed, people can point to it and say "Look, we don't even have the right to vote" -- a very dangerous lie.

The reality is this. Rogue elements have tried to fool us into thinking we do not have this right. We must reject their actions and punish them for their willful attempt to undermine our most basic right – our right not only to vote, but to have confidence in the results of our elections.

Instead of offering a Constitutional Amendment, the entire Bush v. Gore edict must be rejected. The most effective way to do this is to demand Impeachment of the felonious five (yes, even posthumously).

We gave Congress, and only Congress, the power to judge the validity of the electoral votes, and by extension, the validity of the elections on which they are based. On January 6th, Congress must determine whether the INTENT of the law was carried out. (Did each state election reflect the will of the people? Did the election officials conduct the election in a manner that gave the only real stakeholders, the voters, confidence in the conduct and the results?) If we wanted our Presidential elections to be judged under the letter of the law, rather than the intent of the law, we would have given the power to the judiciary. We did NOT.

Just because our leaders are failing to carry out a duty we have placed on them does not mean that duty does not exist. It does, and it is up to us get in their faces and demand they carry it out.

Pat, I agree with most everything you say. I get your point even before the long examples. But somehow (maybe its me) I cannot get you to see that I am saying the same thing.

Absolutely, we, the people, are sovereign; the people of every nation are sovereign even if they do not know it. However, when we relax our power others are too eager to take over, as we have seen. And over time they can convince us that we have no power! This is what I am fighting! Arguing from your point of view I guess I would say that the NI4D proposal is as much intended to show those "in power" that they really are not, as well as to show (remind) the people of their inherent sovereignty and power. Many, probably most, Americans believe they have no power to change government except by armed revolution. And many believe this will eventually happen when things get bad enough. But this is the idea I am fighting! Violent revolution is not necessary; only voting. But the government will not provide us with the obvious means for voting on issues. Mike Gravel found that out when he submitted the National Initiative Bill when he was in the Senate.

My top priority was also impeachment when that effort started a couple of years ago. But democracy needs to be encoded in stone for all to see that the people will not allow it to be taken from us. If we had the National Initiative enacted before Bush entered office, he would not have lasted very long because of being recalled for potential war crimes as he threatened Iraq. But then he would not have tried it either - knowing he could be recalled.

Don't you see the additional empowerment gained by the people's ability to make law? Today Americans depend, depend on their "representatives" to make appropriate laws. And it ain't happening! With massive public pressure we could get some action, but nowhere near as easily as we could by doing it ourselves with initiatives. I really don't understand why you don't see this. It's so obvious to me. I guess I am getting too old to communicate anymore.

You say, "If sovereignty is something that can be taken away by an external entity, it is tough to feel very powerful."

Indeed, how powerful do you think the millions of Americans who marched against the war felt when the White House advisers said "ignore them"? And they continued their war plans.

"When sovereignty is conceptualized as an attribute that CANNOT be taken away, it serves as a defense against fascist propaganda."

That strategy seems to be failing - oh oh, there I go being negative again. Well, the fact is that it is failing - we must admit that to ourselves and be willing to take control. But we can take control peacefully by voting for the NI4D and presenting this "new law and Amendment" to Congress as Philadelphia II intends to do after the people have voted for it.

I’m not arguing against joining the fight for NI4D. The effort does have the potential to wake people up to their own power. But it also has the potential to promote the notion that "we don’t have the power now," therefore, it is an effort I approach with caution.

There are a couple other reasons it does not capture me in the same way it does you.

--------------------------------------
That strategy seems to be failing - oh oh, there I go being negative again. Well, the fact is that it is failing - we must admit that to ourselves and be willing to take control.

I’m not sure what strategy you are referring to. The goal (grounding our definition of ourselves in the fact of our sovereignty) is not a strategy.

Our strategy for tackling the "we have no power" meme is to establish local associations. Each group involves more and more of our neighbors. Reinforcing the message “You are the sovereigns. Now. Today.” is at the core of all our rhetoric and action.

Folks come through the door complaining about what "they" -- the institutions of an alien government, political figures, and remote good government organizations -- are doing. For most people that come through the door, their complaints have no relation to action. They have thrown up their hands. They feel like victims. They believe their sovereignty has been taken away from them. Someone or some entity "out there" needs to take action, not they.

But they are afraid of what things have come to, and where we are. They feel they must “do something” but their habits of inaction and underlying belief in the futility of action, are blocking them. They don’t know what to do. Their not sure if there is anything they can do. And so, they show up.

We believe the primary job of a group leader or facilitator is to transform their dysfunctional believe. We challenge any message that reinforces "them" -- an alien government. We reinforce "We are the Government." We challenge any message that "We have lost our rights" or "we are going to lose our rights when X happens."

Our focus is on defining actions that have specific and well defined goals. The effort to get a Senator to stand up on January 6th was one such effort. Lobbying county election boards to reject DREs is another.

We do not allow any complaint to go by without asking, what can we do about it? Today? Now? If X should do Y, how do we push them? If X won't act, what can we do to make Y happen?

Often, people don’t have answers. If the group is unable to come up with anything, or if the possible actions are things they are unwilling to do, the subject is dropped. Unless a complaint can be turned into action, we don’t have time for it. When folks do figure out specific and concrete steps, the whole dynamic changes. They are not being told what to do. They are choosing to act. They are seeing the effects of their efforts. They are finding ways to exercise their sovereignty today. And being effective is addictive and attractive. People keep coming back. They recruit others.

--------------------------------------
And over time they can convince us that we have no power!

Too many people are already convinced that they have no power. And unfortunately, a lot of rhetoric on the center/left reinforces that. As we focus on identifying the problems, our underlying message is often "You have no power."

For example, folks on the left endlessly talk about the power of money in politics, we complain about it. Sometimes we talk about changes in the law needed to "restore our power." This is an odd sort of message, because if we have no power now, how can we make those changes?

The difference between you and I, as I see it, is that you, and many others on "our side" of the political spectrum are focused on the tangible/procedural aspects that we as a people operate in. That focus is not surprising. It is a practical and knowledge-based approach, and we are generally practical and knowledge-based people.

I, on the other hand, emphasize the concepts -- the spirit -- that we must invoke to create a clear and consistent definition of ourselves; a definition that protects us against the forces in the "real world" that sow hopelessness, helplessness, and immobility.

I realize I’m being repetitious, but in my experience, emphasis on the tangible -- the faulty aspects -- promotes complaint rather than action. Complaint without action immobilizes and sows a sense of helplessness and hopelessness. On the other hand, defining ourselves as the movers and the shakers promotes moving and shaking.

Coincidently, just yesterday, I came across an excerpt from "Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933 - 1945" posted on Maryscott O'Conner's dailykos diary - link to post). The piece touches on how critical it is to distinguish the "spirit" from the "forms" (emphasis mine).

. . .But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves;. . .

I believe it is critical to notice, and ground our definition of ourselves and our place in this nation, in the spirit. To ground ourselves in the unshakable belief in the fact of our sovereignty, whatever happens to the "forms" we operate in.

------------------------
Regarding Marching:

Marching is a form of complaint. In the past, marching was an activity that served to effect change. Today, marching serves to promote solidarity among ourselves (an important component marching has always had) but it does not meet people’s need to feel effective. As you point out, at times it does just the opposite. Marches these days rarely aim to accomplish a specific and concrete goal. They are rarely part of an overall lobbying effort to accomplish a specific and concrete goal. Rather the goal is often limited to "letting them know." When the goal is "letting them know," the absence of evidence that "they" heard is incredibly discouraging and can even reinforce as sense of helplessness.

Your very articulate response has helped me to understand your position. Thanks!

I totally agree that local citizens need to organize to accomplish anything. Our biggest problem today is the lack of understanding of the sovereignty we already have according to the Constitution. Expanding local grassroots groups to spread the word is exactly what I would like to see. In fact, I tried to start a local group for the NI4D project, but got no interest. Maybe it was my approach or terminology - I don't know.

By the way, I think you misread me and NI4D on sovereignty. NI4D does not say we need to enact NI4D to get sovereignty. The project presumes sovereignty - it is key to actually enacting the initiative and Constitutional Amendment! How could we say the people can enact this without sovereignty? We couldn't! This is a very positive message about sovereignty for everyone to understand! And I hope this understanding spreads rapidly!

I've done a couple of postings on this hope Im not ticking anyone off... its just that it really gets to the sentiments at hand. 7 and half minutes with lots of Bushisms and a couple of protest chants and Cindy.

http://didjake.com/

http://www.gp.org/impeachbush.shtml#1

Of course it's not going to happen until after the Democratic sweep of the House and Senate
races in 11/06. Then the Dems will be the majority party, John Conyers will be Chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee, and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House will be in line to
become President if Bush and Cheney and impeached.

While we're waiting for the pot to boil, let's all make lots of noise with WorldCantWait.
They've had a lot of success recruiting students in colleged and high schools.

Here's a video of an anti-torture demonstration they did at Hunter College in NYC:

http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=44

They're organizing for massivce demonstrations at the time of the State of the Union address.

Last Monday they ran a full-page ad in the NY Times:

http://worldcantwait.net/flier/nyt.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/16/kerry_says_impeachment_talk_was_just_merrymaking/
Impeachment is only a joke, we can't be serious.

We may have our political differences, but we need to stand behind our commander-in-chief!
:sarcasm:

In my thinking, we should be dead serious about impeachment, all of us should be mobilizing people to support it. Political leaders who treat it as a joke should be quickly retired.

"How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?' Good luck finding a Democrat in America who disagrees."

That's the way you talk about things the public isn't quite ready to talk about, by saying truths "in jest".

Get a clue. Impeachment is in the air and he is helping to keep it there.

I hope Kerry and the rest get a clue.

He just sent the bandwagon around the block again, trying to get more people to hop on.

His 'jest' did bring it into the national discussion, didn't it?

:thumbsup:

but enough is enough. Mark me down for impeachment.

has always been how to get it to happen.

putting pressure on our reps. Even the high power republicans who would probably not listen to you anyways.

It drives me nuts when I hear them say "No one in my district is asking me to <some action>."

They need to hear from us -- in large numbers -- and we need to document our contacts, and watch them.

If you ever hear your rep deny hearing your demands, call them on it. Call a state or local reporter. Don't think it is not a story. It is.

Even in the reddest districts and states, engaging Dems may not be as hard as you think. When you are surrounded, you feel under siege. People who feel under siege are highly motivated to act. People don't need to make complex arguments. Short angry calls and messages from a lot of people are more effective than lengthy cases from a few.

"They terrorized us with threats of a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes. They made boom threats! I don't want to see any more toothless hearings and reports. We need you to hold them accountable! Impeachment is the only way."

OR

"Where do they get off listening in on our neighbors without getting a warrant? Are they so paranoid that they think the judges are Al Qaeda operatives? It doesn't make sense. The only way to find out what's been going on is to open an Impeachment Inquiry. Are you going to stand up for our right to know?"

OR

"Every month we hear about some new secret or shameful thing they have been up to, things they know we would say NO WAY to -- going after a country they knew didn't pose a real threat to us, the torture, the spying, and we probably don't know the half of it. Wasn't this nation founded on the principle of consent? What are you going to do about all this?"

http://www.stevemagruder.com/hub.php?section=foyer&tab=bbgindex

The following daily search engine poll seeks to determine the public mood with respect to the idea of getting President George W. Bush out of office through impeachment, resignation or some vague idea of removal. The higher the score, the greater the mood for Bush-be-gone.

That a mainstream talking head like Cafferty is getting this kind of input means that there is something beginning to stir out there. Why it has taken so long, I can't understand. After all, there's only been

A stolen election ('00)
LIHOP (can anyone really doubt this?)
Phony war justifications (see the Downing Steret Memo)
Death of more than 2100 US soldiers
Maiming of 15,000 more US soldiers
Countless Iraqi civilian dead
Use of chemical weapons (depleted uranium, white phosphorus)
Torture
Blatant flaunting of international law
Another stolen election ('04)
Establishment of secret prisons/torture sites
Extraordinary rendition
Katrina (LIHOP 2)
Lies, lies and more lies piled atop of mountains of lies

Impeachment first, removal from office, then off to the Hague. Then life imprisonment for the whole evil bunch.

this is priceless

I'm going to have to use that one.

If we get rid of the CHimp, who will take his place? We need to be careful here.