John Conyers keeps having hearings, but then he does nothing. By showing the world that he has the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors by the President and Vice President and the White House Cabinet and by doing nothing with that evidence, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi and others are showing that there is no accountability for the President of the U.S.
Bush said immediately after being illegally selected by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court that now he isn't accountable to anyone. He's proven right in that regard, and it's Nancy Pelosi's fault. By allowing the terrible shepherd, who stole his way into the position to continue on, Pelosi and Conyers do the worst thing they can.
Nancy Pelosi just said that George W. Bush will be gone in 100 days, so why bother with impeachment.
Well, if she had started impeachment proceedings immediately upon taking office as House Speaker, Bush and Cheney would have been long gone and she would be president, barring her own guilt.
Whatever George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have done since the time they would have been removed and whatever they do yet is on Nancy Pelosi's hands too. If they allow Israel to attack Iran, it's Pelosi's fault.
Don't say that the U.S. has no sway over Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons and could threaten the U.S.; however, even though Israel has submarines with nuclear missiles, it couldn't destroy the whole U.S. with nuclear weapons launched from its submarines. The U.S. though could eliminate Israel. Israel has no guarantee that its submarines wouldn't be destroyed first. Perhaps the Israelis have told the U.S. that the Israelis in the U.S. would conduct biological and chemical warfare or that they have planted nuclear weapons inside the U.S.
Besides, the U.S. is sending in a huge naval fleet, a veritable armada, to and around the Persian Gulf. Why would the U.S. be doing that unless the plan is for Israel to attack? Also, Israel would be flying through U.S. controlled airspace (Iraq). If the U.S. President were to tell Israel not to do it and they started to do it, the U.S. Air Force and Navy could stop them.
Regardless, the U.S. gives the Israelis some $3 billion a year decade after decade no matter how tough it is for the poor in the U.S. That's a huge sum for a nation that size. If the U.S. said don't attack Iran and Israel went ahead and did it anyway, then those funds could and should instantly stop. That's the mundane perspective.
Obviously, the neocons are still very much in charge even though they've lost all credibility. Why is that? Follow the money. American candidates suck up to money. Any candidate that isn't a money grubber is destroyed in the corporate media.
Anyway, if Pelosi had had impeachment hearings right away, there would have been so much evidence that would have been put before the people, including the Republicans, who love to have their heads buried, that the overwhelming majority of Americans would have been glad to have both Bush and Cheney removed.
As John Dean said, it's worst than Watergate.
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)