During my seventh/latest plea for action from my municipal government here in Newark, Ohio (in the interest of saving time/space in this post; my sixth speech can be found within a recent entry on my Xanga. I had previously promised to share it here but got caught up in some personal issues) I presented the following speech:

"Let me begin tonight with an official retraction of a misleading statement I made on May 7th. As I came before council during the previous meeting; I stated the following: “…Patrick Henry declared – in a municipal setting – ‘give me liberty or give me death.” It was brought to my attention at the offset of the meeting by a fellow citizen that my comments on Mr. Henry were inaccurate. I would later confirm his comments and discover that the meeting was at the General Assembly of Virginia that met despite the fact that the Colony’s Governor had dissolved that very body beforehand.

 

 I had referenced the statement; believing it relevant to the cause. I still hold that belief, but I wholeheartedly apologize for the inaccuracy. It is my sincere hope that this won’t tarnish my credibility nor even damage my efforts before this council and the people of this great city.

 

 My purpose for seeking action has been well established by now, but I must continue to press forward in the interest of relentlessly and actively defending all that we hold near and dear to our hearts. Never, in this quest, have I sought to mislead this council or anyone else in attendance. I do the necessary research, compile the facts in my written speeches and present them in order of importance from the “least” to the “most”.

 

 Time after time, I’ve been reminded of the likelihood that this matter hasn’t a chance of ever being taken into consideration; especially when one considers the current political landscape. While our municipality sits idly by, opting to ignore this issue altogether; more and more cities, towns and other localities across the country seem to join the fray every month or two. The most incredible fact is that – in one day – over 30 town hall meetings throughout Vermont voted in favor of a demand for Congressional action to hold the Bush Gang accountable.

 

 To date; 93 communities – including the home of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers - have taken this matter into consideration and the vast majority of them have passed their resolutions. A recent poll conducted by Insider/Advantage/Majority opinion, which is operated by a former Republican state legislator and employee of Newt Gingrich, found that after bluntly asking if the respondent would want to see Bush and Cheney impeached the answer was 39% in favor and 55% opposed. This is in contrast to polls conducted during the impeachment of Bill Clinton where it was found that only 32% supported his removal from office. When the question of impeachment includes mention of a specific charge; the support grows. Zogby International discovered in the summer of 2005 that about 42% of those polled favored impeachment if it was found that Bush and his administration lied to lead us to war. Regarding Domestic Wiretapping without a warrant, a contravention of federal law that Bush has admitted to committing via the infamous NSA Surveillance Program; Zogby found through a January 2006 poll that 52% of the respondents supported impeachment in these circumstances.

 

 An unscientific poll conducted online by MSNBC received well over 429,000 responses where 88% of them supported impeachment for the aforementioned crimes and others not highlighted.  Once the probable charges are presented within the impeachment question; there is clearly a consensus amongst the general populace demanding action. The American People want those in government that abuse their power and break the law to be held accountable. Both the evidence I’ve brought before you and that is readily available elsewhere clearly depicts an administration with a total disdain for the law.

 

 In our eternally polarized political environment; true accountability for the elected seems impossible. Democrats don’t want to impeach and remove other democrats, likewise with the Republicans. Only when the evidence mounts so highly against an official does the party line disappear and real action takes place. However, in these times; considering the ever prevalent policy of secrecy with the lack of coverage in the media of any and all atrocities committed; the public is less likely to get a partial, let alone the whole, story.

 

 This is not what our framers intended. The impeachment mechanism was never meant to be reserved for political expediency. It was never intended to be a tool of any party to enact revenge upon their opposition. A barrier exists between partisan bickering and official action for the overall good of the populace; which might be why the founders staunchly opposed the involvement of political parties in our system of governance; fearing that the elected would serve the agenda of their respective party over the will of the electorate.  Is this why Thomas Jefferson said that “(e)very government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories?”

 

 President Lincoln – in his wisdom - had the foresight to see that the constitution should never be tampered with because of the potential in threatening our liberties and that the loss of those liberties would inevitably result in self-destruction when he said: “Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” and “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

 

 Impeachment was undeniably installed as a means to keep the system of checks and balances intact. The reason why the House of Representatives reserve the power of Impeachment and Prosecution of all acts that constituted “treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors” was because the distinguished officials in the lower house of our bicameral legislature more closely represent the will of the people.  That doesn’t entail that impeachment was intended to only be initiated at the demands of the people, but in the interest of protecting their liberties. Our founders feared the rise of an overzealous executive. To ensure that the President and his cabinet would never subvert the constitution to pursue an autocratic agenda, the founding fathers inserted impeachment as our best safeguard against tyranny.

 

 Political convenience is a curse that works like an autoimmune disease. Partisanship obstructs critical thought and thus serves as the enemy within. Our political divisiveness is the biggest obstacle separating this nation from true Representative Democracy. I want all politicians to think logically; Republicans should support impeachment to restore order and credibility with the public. Republican support for a Bush Impeachment could help save both the union and party from the degradation they have suffered in the Bush era. Democrats must impeach Bush to affirm their position as the so-called “party of the people”.

 

 Any official that claims to be for the people should acknowledge their undeniable obligation to protect them from certain tyranny, now or in the future. This must be done by preventing the precedents that have been set in these past six years from going unchallenged. I want it to be known that I feel the implementation of impeachment and removal is vital to preventing the passage of these overreaching powers to the successor of George Bush. In all honesty, this is not solely about Mr. Bush, but his successors as well.

 

 Would anyone want Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani – to name a few – wielding unfettered authority to spy on Americans without warrant, declare deceptive and illegal wars of aggression, or even circumventing the law and thus the will of the people with so-called “signing statements” that interpret the laws they sign in whatever way they wish? Would you want that future or worse for this country? Better yet, is this the example you want our country to set for the second and third world nations?

 

 My frustration with the lack of action by this Congress grows with every day that Bush and Cheney continue to maul the very fabric of what binds this Republic; the constitution and the liberties mentioned within. This is even in light of the fact that numerous ex-officials from this administration are revealing the betrayal and even saying the key words that indicate a demand for immediate action; this has been reinforced with the recent comments by ex-Chief of Staff to Secretary Powell, a retired army colonel that served in Vietnam, Lawrence Wilkerson, when he said: “our founding fathers…would all be astounded that over the course of our short history as a country…we haven't used that little two to three lines in Article II of the Constitution more frequently, the impeachment clause…the language in those …lines about impeachment is nice and precise – it's high crimes and misdemeanors. You compare …Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to (Bush) …or …Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance”.

 

 Bush’s lies and broken pledges continue to this day. Many of you might recall when Bush told troops at Fort Bragg on June 28th, 2005 that “…as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Not even two years later; the military – as reported by the McClatchy Newspapers - revealed that it had abandoned this policy on April 19th, choosing instead to increase tours of duty to 15 months from 12, and amending the mission to conclude that they must eradicate the insurgency and secure the occupied land in order to declare what Bush calls “complete victory”. Can you blame the Iraqi sentiments towards what most of them – according to the Inter Press Service – feel will be an endless occupation?

 

  Bush’s administration and even some top Republicans in Congress have expressed their intentions to respect the demands of the occupied should they demand or merely ask us to leave. However, two factors have come up clearly indicating that the people of Iraq want us out, sooner than later. Although immediate withdrawal is insane and overwhelmingly opposed by the occupied; 71 percent of Iraqi respondents to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes expressed support for a gradual withdrawal over the next year’s course. Furthermore, the Washington Post unveiled Iraqi Parliament plans to demand the departure of the “Coalition”. Will Bush comply?

 

 Recent history clearly indicates that he wouldn’t. This isn’t only disheartening; this is dangerous. Bush’s veto and threats of future vetoes on the supplemental that includes language for benchmarks to be met and clear the way for withdrawal is evidence to this. He refuses to compromise with a congress that was elected by the American People in part as a means to end the war displays his unwavering arrogance. His meetings with Democratic leaders in Congress to negotiate a “compromise” have only served as a way for him to patronize his opponents and demand their cooperation in continuing the war funding on his terms alone, thus circumventing the will of the populace. This is why each of these meetings has failed to achieve the set objectives.

 

 If the past few years may indicate what to expect in the future; Bush may feel inclined to sign one of these bills including either the “benchmarks” or a “withdrawal” provision and append – as he has with other bills he disagreed with – a “signing statement” or otherwise known as an addendum declaring his so-called “right” as our glorious Commander in Chief to ignore said provision and direct the appropriated funds as he sees fit.

 

 The Hill reports that Speaker Pelosi threatened to sue Bush should he seek to use this tactic on this controversial battle. A lawsuit would be an inexcusable and repugnant dodge of congressional obligation in utilizing impeachment to truly holding Bush accountable for this abuse. Not to mention the prospect of a constitutional battle that could end up before the Supreme Court and open the doors of forever etching the overreaching “signing statement” authority into the procedures of the lawmaking process. This would undeniably seal the fate of our nation pushing it one step closer to an autocratic dictatorship.

 

 If Council won’t act, then I recommend that either you set up a time and date for citizens to come and take part in the discussion over the issue or that the matter go before the city in some referendum. I would frankly advise the former against the latter because it would likely be less costly, but I’ll be satisfied either way. The point is putting this matter before the very people affected most by it. I have no delusions about the end result, and I understand the high probability of failure, but every matter deserves a public hearing.

 

 This matter becomes more urgent with each passing day as the march to possible war with Iran continues; the raw story has even reported that – just as the Washington Post shared Bush’s meeting with Pat Robertson in early 2003 at the onset of his war with Iraq – he has apparently met in private with Focus on the Family’s James Dobson to discuss foreign policy where Iran became a top issue of discussion. I feel the need to invoke the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson – the man that coined the phrase “war of aggression” during the Nuremburg Trials – when he said: “no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly condemned as an instrument of policy.”

 

 In closing, Congress has two options; they can honor their oath of office to protect and preserve the constitution by upholding it via the initiation of impeachment proceeds against the Bush Gang, or they should opt to amend the constitution formally repealing the very mechanism that seems so difficult to consider when it is absolutely necessary. To my government I say: “Impeach now or forever relinquish your authority to do so.”"

 During my speech, after the part wherein I criticized Speaker Pelosi(whose office I contacted today to demand reconsideration of her ill-gotten position on impeachment)'s plan to sue BOOsh, the Democratic Council President Marc Guthrie briefly interrupted me to inquire as to whether or not I was close to finishing. I then assured him that I was and finished speaking.

 Since my presentation was the last of three citizen comments, the elected then had their opportunity to speak in the "miscellaneous" segment of the meeting. There was very little said regarding my actual presentation, but the Repugs felt the need to make a mockery of the minor humiliation I experienced when interrupted.

 Councilman Rick Henderson (R) opted to cite my "long" (in all honesty, the speech didn't even last ten minutes; I've been subjected to less interesting comments that lasted twice as long) commentary as a reason to "pass".

 Councilman Don Ellington (R) mockingly taunted me claiming that he had prepared a "17 page study on the Democratic Presidential Candidates" just for me. It was quickly obvious that no such presentation had been prepared - hell, I took him seriously and frankly had looked forward to some sort of rebuttal - instead, it was a cheap attempt to earn a few laughs.

 After Councilman and Majority Leader David Rhodes (R) gestured at how long my speech was, Council President Guthrie (D) reminded the membership that the rules presently maintained no time limit on "Citizen Comments", but that should they choose to amend those rules to include such a limit, he'd enforce it.

 I really have no problems with Guthrie, but I felt a little like everyone's enemy after I lambasted Pelosi's dumbass proposal for a lawsuit at the offset of another "signing statement". Quite honestly, if Council removes the unlimited time frame for citizen commentary on my account, I wouldn't know what to feel. I guess, I'd feel martyred in a way for becoming a target due to my insistence to pursue justice no matter who it pisses off. On otherhand, I'd be disappointed that the childish "majority" would be so annoyed - by the truth that I relentlessly share at every opportunity I get - that they'd actually place a cap on the amount of time that a citizen of our city can make their voice heard.

 Either way, yesterday was a mixed day if I ever experienced one.