By Dave Lindorff:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took power in the House of Representatives in January on a wave of public enthusiasm and hopes that Congress would finally start holding the president to account.
Originally from ICHblog.eu - News you will not find on CNN or Fox! on July 5, 2007, 2:35am
Nancy Pelosi could not take the lead on this in her view. She needed a demonstration after the election that the people/voters will really back her if she heads down the path of impeachment. She had many things to consider, including that it would appear rather self-serving since she'd be the president if Bush and Cheney were removed together. She thinks she's been pragmatic. That's how she got where she is. She also does not want to alienate potential campaign backers of the Democratic Party ticket for the upcoming presidential elections-wealthy Jews for instance, many of whom fear a backlash on account of the neocons being false Zionists. It's calculating.
Now we are seeing things falling into place where, barring a false-flag operation by the neocons, the people in Congress can say with polls to back it up that the American people by a large majority want to see Dick Cheney impeached and tried and removed from office if the evidence bears out, which it would. In fact, as more and more of the evidence were put forth, the numbers of people backing his removal from office would only increase.
He'd actually resign before it got that far so Bush could name a new vice president who would not be removed so that Pelosi would not become president. Of course, Bush wouldn't be far behind Cheney in being driven from office since much of the same evidence would hold against him as well. That would mean that his vice presidential appointee would become president without having been elected by the people, just as was the case concerning Gerald Ford.
I'm not in politics, but if I were a Democrat I'd move to impeach both of them at the same time and to try them together and not confirm a replacement vice president before Bush left office. Pelosi would be president and name her vice president. Then there would still be the election in fairly short order.
Anyway, the poll numbers have changed since last November. Many more people have seen more light (truth) about the folly and even evil that is the Iraq War and occupation. Many are just holding their breath about Iran. Will Bush be reckless enough to attack Iran? What a mess he'd be leaving behind.
Michael Moore's film "Sicko" has also been well-timed. It has helped a great deal to put the greedy and violent ones on even more of the defensive. Their whole way is wrong. The terrible way that people are treated by the so-called healthcare industry in the U.S. is inextricably connected to the war and occupation. The same selfish mentality has caused both deplorable situations. It all needs to be turned around.
Michael has also helped immensely to remove the stigma from the term "socialized," which is swinging the pendulum way over to the left where it belongs in terms of cooperating and giving and sharing rather than competing and taking and hoarding.
Yes, we need leaders who are good shepherds who are out front calling for all of us and each of us to do what is righteous. Nancy Pelosi has been a politician first and a leader second-a distant second. It isn't all her fault though. The people and the leaders reflect each other.
The most important thing in all of this is to not stop the process toward righteousness once the Republican neocons are out. That would be the exact same error as after the Vietnam War.
Carter came in but he faced what he correctly termed a malaise. It was burnout. It was a let down. That opened the door for the disastrous Ronald Regan administration and Regan's death squads in Latin America.
I have no hope for the system. It will fail and fall. However, during the process, much good can be done from outside that evil system. The people can learn more and more about the spirit of cooperating and giving and sharing without any usurpers coming along to lord it over them (no Stalin's).
As for Pelosi, she's getting the message from the people. She's not being too hard to drag along. She's not kicking and screaming. She's gaining cover since other Democrats have been out front on the issue and more and more Democrats are getting on board. This is happening at exactly the same time that more and more Republicans are jumping ship concerning Bush's War.
It's a real shame that Bush is going to fall on his own sword so to speak. It's awful to witness all the death and destruction he's caused and is still causing and to also watch him self-destruct rather than repent.
He's acting so cocksure that it is as if he has an ace up his sleeve. Is that ace a planned false-flag operation?
As for Pelosi saying it would be a "waste of time" and "isn't worth it," let's not pretend that we don't know what she means. It would take away from time that could be spent on other pressing issues. She needs to be educated about the message of responsibility and accountability that impeachment and removal would send around the world.
The motive cannot be vengeance or punishment. It must be for the sake of replacing bad shepherds with good shepherds. It doesn't help anyone to punish the mentally and spiritually ill.
Bush and Cheney need to be called to feel (compassion, mercy). Oh, Bush sheds tears for fallen U.S. soldiers. He doesn't though cry for the poor or oppressed or spiritually misled.
Bush claims he commuted Scooter Libby's jail sentence for being excessive. We all know though that he didn't commute the sentence for that reason but rather to buy off Libby, to keep him beholden and loyal as much as possible.
As for the Democrats in office, they are getting the message. The people are wiser to the con game now than they were during the Vietnam War. The Internet has helped with that a great deal (which makes the military-industrial complex nervous).
The 9/11 Truth Movement and Abu Ghraib have caused people to connect so many more dots than ever before concerning the evil of greed that is the basis of monopolistic capitalism. We all know that the 9/11 Commission was utterly controlled by the neocons who prevented a true investigation. We also all know that the U.S. government has engaged in deliberate torture of even wholly innocent people including women and children. It's all there.
Pelosi knows that during an impeachment, it would all be placed out there again only more so. She doesn't relish the thought.
It all has to go, the whole system, not just the neocons. The righteous must stand by pacifism and for the people to regain their rightful inheritance from God that is the Commons, the free land respected and cared for by all for all.
For evil, false liberals, the only way for them to be rid of neocon types will be through violence. They'll destroy one another, and the meek will inherit the Earth.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)