Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHow quickly can a motivated legislative chamber impeach a scoundrel?
Very quickly, indeed.
The Illinois House of Representatives, acting just hours after the chamber's investigative committee recommended action against scandal-plagued Governor Rod Blagojevich, voted 114-1 Friday morning in favor of impeachment of the man who allegedly hung a "for sale" sign on the Senate seat of President-elect Barack Obama.
The Illinois House action sets up a state Senate trial that could lead to the removal of Blagojevich for abusing his office -- and for getting himself in such a mess that he can no longer effectively govern.
The Senate convenes for a trial on the impeachment charge next week, with each of the 59 senators acting as a juror. If 40 vote to convict the governor, he's out.
And if sentiments expressed in the state House are any indication -- where support for impeachment crossed lines of party, ideology and region -- it seems likely that the governor's days in office are numbered.
"Due to his conduct, the governor has failed to uphold the oath of office," explained state Representative Barbara Flynn Currie, who chaired of the House panel that held impeachment hearings while everyone in Washington was watching the circus surrounding Blagojevich's nomination of Roland Burris to fill the Obama seat.
On Thursday, the committee unanimously recommended that the House move against the governor.
On Friday, it did, with Currie saying of the governor: "He is no longer capable of defending our liberties. He should be impeached."
State Representative Jack Frank, a Chicago Democrat, was blunter: "It's our duty to clean up the mess and stop the freak show that's become Illinois government."
Representative Frank and his colleagues will get no argument from this quarter.
However, it is intriguing to some of us who have advocated for another impeachment (or so), that things are now moving so quickly in Illinois that Blagojevich forced from office before George Bush and Dick Cheney leave voluntarily.
What the Illinois circumstance tells us it that, for all the whining and bemoaning by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her cautious colleagues, impeachment need not be the cumbersome or dysfunctional process that members of Congress imagine -- and fear.
While Blagojevich certainly seems deserving of early retirement, it is difficult to imagine how the Illinoisan's offenses can even be compared with those of Cheney -- who recently acknowledged violating his oath of office and affronting the Constitution by actively promoting cruel and unusual punishment of those detained by the U.S. government.
Say what you will about the mess in Illinois.
But at least the Land of Lincoln has a legislature that recognizes its constitutional duty and acts upon it.
Washington could take a lesson from Springfield.
After all, there's still more than enough time to impeach and try a vice president who has admitted to far higher crimes and misdemeanors than those alleged against Governor Blagojevich.
There is no Constitutional impediment -- only the false construct put in place by Pelosi when she declared, for reasons of politics as opposed to principle, that impeachment was off the table.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Mr. Nichols
IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!
Bush the Lesser is out in 11 days--there will be no impeachment in that time period.
Posted by brunowe at 01/09/2009 @ 1:57pm
Okay, Mr Nichols, you have truly surprised me....
I NEVER counted on ONE MORE impeachment article coming this late in the game. I figured you had pretty much wrapped it up last October.
So, I'm not going to be totally shocked now, if you sneak in yet one more with a "You know, a POST-Presidential impeachment IS Constitutional" article some time in the future!
heheh
And where the heck is my old pal, HSUBFOOLS?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 2:51pm
My biggest thought when looking at the article was...the vote to impeach was 114-1. Since I'm betting that Blagojevich himself doesn't get a vote, I have to wonder who the one nay vote was...
Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2009 @ 3:34pm
Mr Nichols, I've thought about Pelosi taking impeachment off the table, and it brings up some interesting side effects. Say they were successful in impeaching Cheney, Rove, Gonzo etc. If, for some reason any of them were found guilty of any criminal activity while W is in office, W would just pardon them. But, since nobody besides Libby have been charged with any crimes, W can't pardon them, and when he is no longer in office, he can't pardon them after the fact if some attorneys were to take some of these grafting crooked public officials.
Nothing will be probably come of it, but it does leave the door open for criminal prosecutions to take place.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:38pm
Watching the case of the Illinois gov carefully and at the same time watching the national media via cable. Nora O'Donnell literally lied about what the Gov. has said. Why???? A strange thought just occurred to me. Does Fitzgerald have economic trade interests and why does he need 90 days to prepare his case?
Posted by julien38 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:42pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:38pm
Not likely either, WOLF. Evidentiary moves could be blocked on national security reasons, and Dubya & Company could claim that since Congress didn't go after them, it gave tacit approval.
Plus get the trial moved to Utah or Texas or LVLIBERTY's backyard, and you could see it thrown out and be even MORE debilitating to the case against them in the history books.
No.....Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al's punishment will be karmic...and historical. No amount of Fox News, Weekly Standard, or right-wing blogging revisionism will save them from the ignominity of history.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 3:46pm
Ohhhhhh liberal scum. Blago was using the liberal handbook's rule #1 on how to deflect criticism: " When you are cornered on any debate/issue, change the argument and you change the debate"! This piece of shit, loser-liberal, poverty-pimpin' ( the left's specialty ), oxygen-thief, emarrassment to his mother's vagina, son of a bitch comes from the same corrupt shit hole of pay-for-play politics that our new, RACIST, ANTI_AMERICA, TERRORIST SYMPATHIZING ( see Bill Ayers ) cock-sucking Pres. Elect, Barack " white man's greed runs a world in need " Osama!!!! Yet, after all he's done, there are still loser liberals shaking this bastard's hand before press conferences!!!!!! Liberalism truly is a mental disorder and it also waters the seeds of evil all over the world, day in and day out!
Posted by barry25 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:47pm
Wow, BDS ( Bush Derangement Syndrome ) is still affecting many loser-libs!!!! Hopefully the pharmacuetical industry will invest in some good ol' R&D to provide these very sick people with some much needed help, so that they can actually pull themselves out of this cloud of mis-directed hate towards the boogeyman, GW Bush!
Posted by barry25 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:50pm
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/09/2009 @ 4:01pm
Liberalism truly is a mental disorder and it also waters the seeds of evil all over the world, day in and day out! Posted by barry25 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:47pm
Man, oh, man! The seeds of evil?
What in gods name are you talking about, Barry? You seem so concerned about this misplaced hate for George W Bush, but you seem to joyously apply it in the other direction. I'd say that ALL the politicians alive should share in the blame for many of the problems in our system.
The sad reality is that GW is still president. He's sort of in hiding, but he's doing stuff that all the outgoing presidents do, pardons, last minute signing into law of dubious things. Remember the 'haves and the have mores?' The aircraft carrier comedy? Torture? And, of course Osama B... "I don't know where he is...I just don't spend that much time on it..."
There's more to the world than simple left and right issues. If we can fix that mindset we may just survive. IMPEACH BLAGO! I vote demoncrat, but he's gotta go! Does he have a giant mole on his forehead? Love the hair.....
Posted by ficheye at 01/09/2009 @ 4:33pm
<i>Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:38pm </i>
I wonder how much that's actually the case. I really don't know much about this area of the law, but I do know that when Ford pardoned Nixon, he pardoned for any crimes that he has or may have committed. In other words, he gave him a pardon for crimes beyond those he had been charged with. If he could do that (and I THINK he could), then Bush could easily issue a categorical pardon to the officials in his administration for any crimes that they may have committed, regardless of whether anyone has yet charged them.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2009 @ 4:47pm
many loser-libs!!
Posted by barry25 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
still having trouble adjusting to new realities, eh?
barry...what just happened in november, eh?
welcome to the world, child...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/09/2009 @ 4:55pm
'But at least the Land of Lincoln has a legislature that recognizes its constitutional duty and acts upon it.'
As per the prosecutor's office - Illinois is one of the most corrupt in the nation. Might it be a fair inference then to assume that our US Congress is more corrupt than that of Illinois? Ouch!
Posted by OneVote at 01/09/2009 @ 6:14pm
Seeds of evil: Liberals defend pedophiles ( ACLU/Nambla ), murderous dictators, all violent criminals ( except white males ), terrorists, adultery/betrayal, the murder of unborn and newly born babies ( thanks Barack ), murderous gangs solely based on their race ( thanks Barack, who voted against stiffening penalties for the gangs that were terrorizing black neighborhoods, using the pathetically racist excuse that these stiffer penalties would "dis-proportionately affect african-americans because the vast majority of gang members in Ill. are black, how insane is that? ) and even some defend the likes of Blago. A lying, cheating, narcissistic-sociopath in the form of Bill Clinton is still held in high regard even though he has shown himself to be a serial-betrayer of not only his wife and daughter, but also the morons who voted for him and foolishly stood behind him as he denied all charges ( fools/sheep). The bottom line is, today's form of liberalism fosters, enables, and empowers evil. My child is being shown example after example of this and i will continue to point out the truth about liberalism to all I know in the hopes of saving everything our forefathers fought and died for ( and the left appreciates none of it) !
Posted by barry25 at 01/09/2009 @ 6:51pm
The Reason they Are NOT or were Never going to Impeach Bush-Cheney is not due to ANY of the weak excuses they used, that an impeachment is a messy project. The reason is is because the majority of the people in Congress and the Senate who voted with George W. Bush, both Republicans and Democrats, they would be in just as much violations and are only saving their own asses!
These people voted along with the Bush regime on the US Patriot Act, which grossly violates americans civil liberties. These politicians voted to attack Iraq and to send in troop surges. If they didn't directly support the torture that was taking place, they at the least turned a blind eye towards it.
In other words, if these Politicians, including many of Obama's incoming staff, were to impeach and try Bush and Cheney, they too would be guilty of at least supporting his evil actions. And let's not forget that carrying on of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would burn a whole lot of our politicians, which I personally think should happen, but since they are the ones in power, they do not think they should burn themselves.
And that is why BUSH is getting away with his crimes.
http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 01/09/2009 @ 7:27pm
Barry, I appreciate your enthusiasm.
But do you realize just how biased you are? Of course you do! That's the point, hmmm? As long as you are way off topic, let's at least address some inconsistencies in your opinions.
Consider this: There are just as many pedophiles who are conservatives. Maybe more. I don't like pedophiles, to put it mildly. And my point here is not to defend 'the left'. I'm really more of a centrist. But you teeter on the brink blaming it all on liberals. Try doing a google search for this:
Republicans, pedophilia.
You may get to...
http://www.staticbrain.com/archive/stop-republican-pedophilia/
This is an incredible list of Right Wing sickos.
You will not like what you see. These guys, Mark Foley, Strom Thurmond, and others were not liberals. You may actually be shocked. It's not a short list.
Of course, I'm sure that you can find some liberal offenders as well, if that's what you want to see. Maybe just as many. But what I'm saying here is that 'those on the left', (still wondering who 'those' are), are not primarily the folks who encourage or engage in pedophilia. The blame, for certain, needs to be spread around, embracing ALL who are sick... not just 'liberals'.
Pedophiles: BAD.
Crass generalizations which find fault with a specific political school of thought, blaming 'them' for all of the worlds misery: WORSE
Posted by ficheye at 01/09/2009 @ 7:38pm
Posted by barry25 at 01/09/2009 @ 6:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
LOL! You sound like one of my crazy co-workers. You know, that guy who is really anti-social and mad at the world, so we gotta keep an eye him because he might come to work and kill us all.
ha!
Posted by Daisenryaku at 01/09/2009 @ 8:01pm
The reason that the majority leadership took impeachment off the table is that whatever wrongs Bush and Cheney might be accused of in a bill of impeachment, they were able to do so with the complicity of many Democrats as well as Republicans. Think of the members of congress who would be sweating bullets if a presidential or vice-presidential impeachment were to move toward becoming a reality. Start with the first obvious question: "Who voted for the war?"
Presidential impeachment just isn't going to happen.
By contrast, Rod "the Hair" Blagojevich is a very easy target for criticism and censure. As far as we know, no powerful politicians are going to go down with him. He sought to sell a senate seat for his own or his wife's enrichment. He is along in deep water and the sharks are circling.
Posted by jsens at 01/09/2009 @ 10:50pm
Blah, blah, blah. I'm just curious. Will the talk of impeachment go away after one Repub goes thru it? That will even the score for Clinton, and the Left can finally come to closure for that embarassment.
Or, is impeachment just going to become the new way of voting the opposition out of office? I mean, that could get complicated, and worse yet keep thousands of lawyers fully employed.
Does Illinois law allow impeachment of someone just because you don't like the cut of their jib? Blago hasn't even gone to trial.
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 11:03pm
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 11:03pm
Kind of curious how the Clinton impeachment was an embarassment ...for the Left?
Given it was-
(A) at the behest of REPUBLICANS
(B) it failed
and (C) the American public didn't support it?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2009 @ 09:28am
I agree with Mask, but the Left hasn't been able to get over Clinton's impeachment and many have openly sought revenge ever since. Curious indeed!
Posted by jsens at 01/10/2009 @ 10:50am
"Wow, BDS ( Bush Derangement Syndrome ) is still affecting many loser-libs!!!! "
Hey barry25 (at 01/09/2009 @ 3:50pm), Is there something you can't deal with - specifically: reality? Check the election scores again our real American people kicked your delusional concept of "real america's" butt. And apparently you can't accept that so you need to change it in your head sometimes called denial but in the extreme -psychosis.
If you want to see "loser" and "deranged" -- check the mirror. |
Posted by uwakeup at 01/10/2009 @ 11:19am
My biggest thought when looking at the article was...the vote to impeach was 114-1. Since I'm betting that Blagojevich himself doesn't get a vote, I have to wonder who the one nay vote was... Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2009 @ 3:34pm
THAT'S exactly what I thought Thrawn.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/10/2009 @ 11:27am
"My child is being shown example after example of MY TALENT FOR CRUISING THE RED LIGHT DISTRICT IN SEARCH OF BARGAIN-BASEMENT 'HOS... and i will continue to point out the truth about liberalism to all I know in the hopes of saving everything our forefathers fought and died for...WITH THE CONSPICIOUS 'ASSISTANCE' OF THE "HELL, NO, I WON'T GO!!!" WARRIOR-POET SET OF SAXBY CHAMBLISS, GEORGE W FAILURE, AND RUSH"
Posted by barry25 at 01/09/2009 @ 6:51pm
BARRY,
As you seek to install yourself in the position of teacher to the "captive audience" of a child while high on the de-cerebralizing fumes of rightism, tell us which of the following are your favorite rightwingers for their tireless quests for Truth, Uplift to Human Potential, Peace, Harmony between Different Peoples:
__ Adolph Hitler
__ Agusto Pinochet
__ Suharto
__ Benito Musolini
__ Larry "One-Stop Family Values in the Mnpls Airport Men's Room" Craig
__ Robert "Get Behind the Fist" Mugabe
__ Josef Fritzl
__ Strom "The Maid is My Baby Mama, Whatever I May Say and Do in Public" Thurmond
__ The Argentinian Junta (1976-84)
__ Mark "Keep the Children Safe" Foley
__ El Salvador's 1980s Junta
__ Jesse Helms
__ P.W. Botha
__ Warren Jeffs
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/10/2009 @ 12:31pm
Sometimes I wonder why so many right-wing folks read these columns. Do all of you enjoy trashing them? It seems like an awful waste of your time.
I agree with Nichols that both Bush and Cheney could still be impeached--much worse than anything Blago has apparently done. My conclusion is that most of Congress is too cowardly to move.
I do wonder why Fitzgerald needed 90 days and the defense has a point about pre-trial publicity. Fitzgerald's work re Libby was a fiasco both because he didn't indict Rove and because Bush's pardon made the whole thing an irrelevant, expensive waste of money and time. Maybe F should have waited with his announcement, although I think Burris should have declined the appointment...must be a huge opportunist. I'd rather have seen Jesse Jr. or Jan Schakowsky get the seat, presuming Jesse did nothing wrong.
By the way, right-wingers, I'm not a liberal and I don't think Caroline Kennedy should get the NY seat because there are a dozen more qualified women available. She's more knowlegeable than Palin but actually has less relevant experience.
Posted by mimsky at 01/10/2009 @ 2:49pm
Impeachment during a petty dic'tatorship... yeah, sure.
Congress, we know now, only saved face best it could by taking impeachment off the table as a cover story per not having the power to do its duty anyway. The lazy ignorant US public took it in the ass while the cowardly corporate MSM helped hold the blind-sided citizens numbly down.
Impeachment itself would be way too kind for the hsuB/cHeney admin for all the crimes they purposely committed in the name of a delusional ideology of greed and its own aggrandizement at the detriment of our nation; telling any law broken-- to go fuck itself.
The question, the hope-- is whether it's over and that the gestapo US DoJ actually will once again become a defender of our constitution and laws, rather than a secret tool of GOP corporate crime.
Never forget: the crimes committed by the hsuB/cHeney admin have no statute of limitation...
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/10/2009 @ 5:07pm
Impeachment is a gesture that should be used only in extreme circumstances to dishonor a public figure. If used too often it loses importance. If used when called for, almost everyone in Washington would be up for impeachment. Being a conservative liberal myself I see wrongdoing on both sides of the isle and hope Obama is listening to the American people and demands full disclosure soon after entering office on where all our money has gone, and where our money goes in the future. The House has cleaned up their act on disclosing EARMARKS; but the Senate has not - led by Harry Reid. Possibly his mouth is his only way to smokescreen his actions.
Posted by nellyb at 01/10/2009 @ 5:10pm
Impeachment is a gesture that should be used only in extreme circumstances to dishonor a public figure. If used too often it loses importance. If used when called for, almost everyone in Washington would be up for impeachment. Being a conservative liberal myself I see wrongdoing on both sides of the isle and hope Obama is listening to the American people and demands full disclosure soon after entering office on where all our money has gone, and where our money goes in the future. The House has cleaned up their act on disclosing EARMARKS; but the Senate has not - led by Harry Reid. Possibly his mouth is his only way to smokescreen his actions.
Posted by nellyb at 01/10/2009 @ 5:10pm
Like I said: "The lazy ignorant US public took it in the ass..."
Then again there are those that really enjoy that sort of thing; even sometimes accept painful degradation, not as approaching torture, but as expressing--- love!
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/10/2009 @ 5:40pm
<i>Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/10/2009 @ 12:31pm </i>
Yup, you're right, extremism is bad. Taking some conservative premises to crazy extremes is bad, and taking some liberal premises to crazy extremes is bad. Or maybe more precisely, taking one principle out of a liberal tradition (for example, "liberty") and deifying it as the only relevant standard (so that the goal becomes "maximum freedom with little regard to other considerations") is problematic. This is why the kind of moderation that Liberty pays lip servic opposition to, but I think actually supports at least to an extent in some areas, is good.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2009 @ 5:43pm
Impeachment itself would be way too kind for the hsuB/cHeney admin for all the crimes they purposely committed in the name of a delusional ideology of greed and its own aggrandizement at the detriment of our nation; telling any law broken-- to go fuck itself. Posted by hsuBfools at 01/10/2009 @ 5:07pm
So, I'm wondering. If impeachment is way too kind, what do you have in mind? Hanging them from a lamppost?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 5:57pm
What they care about most is their money and power-- start with that. Seize every penny they and their war/energy profiteering buds made; then have all of them do community service, door to door-- in Iraq... The dirtier and harder, the better. And make it for the rest of their stinking miserable lives. When they die after years and years of graveling, bury them altogether in a secret mass grave. That might start to be approaching only subtle nuance on the periphery of being fair.
But sure, impeach them when our cowardly congress doesn't have a gun to their head and the petty dic'tatorship/unitary exec admin skips town with billions tucked away in corporate buds accounts all over the place. But since the NSA can get into our accounts at a drop of a hat, er, drop of a bomb, there shouldn't be a problem tracking all of the pilfered down.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/11/2009 @ 02:41am
A bit like expecting the Roman Senate to impeach Nero. Possible in theory. Now let's get real.
As one of Alexander Mc-Call-Smith's characters points out, the trouble with politics is that it tends to attract all the wrong sorts.
Posted by mikecope at 01/11/2009 @ 05:16am
Barr Slams Illinois House Impeachment Resolution Calls Blagojevich Impeachment Premature and Irresponsible
Former Congressman Bob Barr issued a statement today criticizing the Illinois House of Representatives for its resolution impeaching Governor Rod Blagojevich, calling such a move "premature" and "irresponsible."
"To impeach a duly-elected governor against who there has been no formal charges whatsoever brought, much less a finding of guilt, is premature and highly irresponsible," said Barr, a former federal prosecutor and a Clinton impeachment manager during his service as a member of the United States House of Representatives in 1998-1999.
"To jump to the conclusion that a governor is guilty of impeachable offenses based on nothing more than preliminary, government-developed evidence for which there has been no opportunity to rebut or refute, is to render meaningless any notion of due process, equal protection of the law, or presumption of innocence," Barr concluded.
For further information please contact Andy MacPherson at 770-836-1776 or andy@bobbarr.org .
Barr, a former Member of Congress (1995-2003), also served previously as a US Attorney and with the Central Intelligence Agency. He was the Libertarian nominee for President in 2008.
Posted by ken mitchell at 01/11/2009 @ 11:55am
Wow, Barr's really lost it. That's what the impeachment trial will do; it will allow Blog to rebut the charges.
I smell politics. Maybe Barr wants to hamper Dems by leaving the stinking scandals on the front page for as long as possible.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/2009 @ 11:57am
Given that this thread is a tribute to Liberal political fantasies (and the idea of a Bush/Cheney impeachment is nothing more than a fantasy), let's revisit another fantasy; the idea that Man will raise the temperature on the planet appreciably over the next century.
Here's a "news" report from The Nation's favorite "news" source: Pravda.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth's orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth's ‘wobble', which gradually rotates the direction of the earth's axis over a period of 26,000 years.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/2009 @ 12:04pm
About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.
The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture' of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/2009 @ 12:37pm
Twenty years from now, we may be unable to top ANWR oil because of gliaciers. And we will say, "Why oh why didn't we tap the life-saving oil while we still had the chance?"
"Why did we listen to the hysterical Chicken Littles telling us that we would kill every person on earth with CO2 and we'd "spoil" the Artic tundra before a Glacier decided to sit on top of it for 100,000 years?"
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/2009 @ 12:40pm
Half the scientist believe we're all gonna die because of man-made global warming and half believe we're all gonna die because we didn't prepare for the next ice age.
I guees the only thing that is certain is we are all gonna die. Soon!
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/2009 @ 12:42pm
How about we talk some Bush?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/10/ bush-says-refused-bail-republicans-iraq-withdrawal/
During the darkest days of Iraq, people came to me and said, 'You're creating incredible political difficulties for us,'" the current president said as his term draws to a close. "And I said, 'Oh, really? What do you suggest I do?' And some suggested retreat, pull out of Iraq.
"But I had faith that freedom exists in people's souls and therefore, if given a chance, democracy and Iraqi-style democracy could survive and work," the president said. "I didn't compromise that principle for the sake of trying to, you know, bail out my political party."
The younger Bush agreed. "The biggest disappointment in the political process, that's been this kind of bitterness by a few people to the point where they don't want to have a logical discussion or a civil discussion about policy," he said. "They just want to tear you down."
But with the war in Iraq nearly won after years of setbacks, the younger Bush exudes serenity as he wraps up his two terms in the White House. "I'm better than fine -- I am proud of the accomplishments of this administration," he said. "I know I gave it my all for eight years, and I did not sell my soul for the sake of popularity. And so when I get back home and look in the mirror, I will be proud of what I see." *********************************************************
Eight year from now, When Obama has accomplished maybe 10% of what he promise, how many of you will look in the mirror and be proud of what you see.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/2009 @ 12:46pm
DBFT, You mean to say after 8 years of hsuB/cHeney admin's conviction for crimes against humanity and our nation and their forced lifetime community service sentence in Iraq?
Now THAT would be an accomplishment!
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/11/2009 @ 1:40pm
IS CONYERS CORRUPT?
CONYERS has claimed to be the leading supporter of impeachment but in his job as House Judiciary Commission Chairman HAS BLOCKED IMPEACHMENT FOR YEARS.
CONYERS PROMISED TO HOLD IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AFTER THE ELECTION BUT BROKE HIS WORD.
CONYERS IGNORED A PETITION WITH OVER ONE MILLION NAMES ASKING FOR IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
HE ALSO IGNORED A NUMBER OF OTHER PETITIONS THAT ADDED UP TO ANOTHER MILLION NAMES.
AND NOW WE FIND THAT CONYERS MAY HAVE BEEN CLOSER TO THE REPUBLICANS? See these articles: "GOP ELECTION STEALERS RUN REP. JOHN CONYERS'S CONGRESSIONAL WEBSITE"
"GOP Election Stealers Run John Conyers' Website" http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38816 and "GOP Technology Powerhouse eMerges Behind Firewalls on the Hill"
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/ top_tier_GOP_techs_GovTech_and_GSL_Solutions_merge
WHAT WAS CONYERS' BEHIND THE SCENES RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VOTE RIGGING REPUBLICAN SCAM?
DOES THIS EXPLAIN CONYERS REFUSAL TO HOLD IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS?
THE ONLY WAY CONYERS CAN PROVE TO THE VOTERS IN HIS DISTRICT THAT HE WASN'T PLAYING GAMES WITH IMPEACHMENT
IS TO START IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS BEFORE JANUARY 20th!
JUST GET THEM STARTED.
IF CONYERS IS THE PATRIOT HE CLAIMS TO BE THAT WILL BE EASY TO DO.
Anyone here think he has the cojones?
CONYERS WILL Be Remembered In American History AS
THE MAN WHO HAD THE POWER BUT REFUSED TO USE IT TO DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION AND RIGHTS
IF The Illinois House Can Vote To Impeach After Only 90 Minutes of Debate Then The So Called Democrats Of The US House Can Get Hearings Started Before January 20th To Stop The Pardons.
We voters will remember your cowardice in 2010
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 01/11/2009 @ 1:46pm
Obama's choice to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, has said that the next president should avoid "any temptation to simply move on." Here is the relevant quote:
"We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/11/2009 @ 1:50pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/200
ConservaFreaks undoubtably become boring even to themselves in their predictable insistance on exhibiting depthless stupidity and in having no grasp over what they are angering about. One of the more memorable instances of this was when JOMAMMA -- a guy with so little respect for his own manhood that he sprouted boobs (and then posted on it here) -- went apeshit over the video that he said he saw in which, in 1987, Ollie North warned Sen Al Gore about the evilf of OBL. Except it never happened. Gore was not on that particular committee. North's own office issued a statement on letterhead debunking the rightwing tall tale. And then JOMAMMA refused pointedly to say that he had been duped, seemed proud of it much like a particularly homely baby who is "proud" of the faeces they he abundently churned into his faeces-satuarated diaper.
Let us vote, in that case, for the most astoundingly stupid rightwing memes that rightwingers ape from their media masters, as we see from DARIN above. The proposed ballot:
__ Clinton murdered Vince Foster in cold blood, smoked him with Hillary at his side after she had castrated the long suffering aide.
__ All investigations prove that Iraq was loaded with WMDs, delivery systems, and actionable plans to invade Saudi Arabia and Holland (although, oddly, Iraq never tried to use the WMDs to defend itself from the huge military buildup in the gulf).
__ The "Allah Akbhar!" corner: George W Loser was masculinity defined on September 11, emerging from the rubble with beard stubble and Hollywood-style designer dried blood to rally the nation (to vote GOP in '02).
__ George W Loser is a Vietnam war hero, on patrols with Saxby Chambliss and Rush to root out Ho's aid-de-camp John Kerry.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/11/2009 @ 5:55pm
More rightwing howlers that 100% brain-washed freaks like DARIN, SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT TO VOTE" CHERMAK, LVLIBERTY1 (Al HURRA), JOMAMMA, PONTI and BARRY-IQ-25 endlessly fetch, as their masters at NewsMax demand of them:
__ The War on Christmas rivals the Russian bombardment of Georgia in its intesnity.
__ George W Loser is a much beloved Maximum Leader by the adoring volk. But the MSM has resolutely refused to cover this story because the employees of these media machines are Kremlin assets.
__ Ayatollah Todd and Saint Sarah are never more American than than when they sternly slam their fists in their palms to proclaim "Alaska First!!!" as a succesionist motto in defiance of the Evil Empire in the Beltway (the tit of which they are willing to suck for the usual copious bursts of taxpayer delivered subsidies to deadbeat red(neck)states, all ludicrous posturings of self-reliance aside).
__ The Clinton era was a bleak time during which the middle class was reduced en masse to living under highway bridges and selling their children's vital organs. By contrast, the W Loser economy has been a Triumph, except in scattered moments when Barney Frank threw wrenches in the works. Prosperity is the top-to-bottom situation after almost a decade of W Loser's steering from the helm.
__ During the Clinton era, September 11s were happening every week...or every year, at least. Yes sir, W Loser put a stop to this. On September 12. But Loser and his team could not do anything beforehand because he's from Crawford and the Attorney General had more statues to put clothes on so they would not have exposed bosoms. A triumph of rightwing governance that governs best by governing least.
__ W Loser was born into a dirt poor, underprivileged Mexican family. Jorge Abusto, si.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/11/2009 @ 6:17pm
Half the scientist believe we're all gonna die because of man-made global warming and half believe we're all gonna die because we didn't prepare for the next ice age.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/2009 @ 12:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Darin, that's the conclusion you came to from reading a half-baked article in Pravda?
I guess that confirms it.
You're an IDIOT!
Posted by Lillian at 01/12/2009 @ 12:10am
Darin, that's the conclusion you came to from reading a half-baked article in Pravda?
I guess that confirms it.
You're an IDIOT!
Posted by Lillian at 01/12/2009 @ 12:10am
No, that's my conclusion from reading a hundred different articles; looking at temperature and CO2 data from the last millenium; having an extensive background in statistics and physics; reading the cover of Time magazine, which has predicted untold loss of life due to ice age (twice in the last century) and global warming (twice in the last century); reading Paul Ehrlich's hysterical warnings of death and destruction; and having forty-some years of experience with human nature.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 06:33am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/11/200
ConservaFreaks undoubtably become boring even to themselves in their predictable insistance on exhibiting depthless stupidity ...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/11/2009 @ 5:55pm
Hey Phil, How's your homosexual lover, Ben Dover, treating ya?
(Do you guys get it? Ben Dover and Phil McCrevice, are the famous Scottish homosexuals. Their neighbors are the Irish homosexuals Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick.)
Obviously I'm not taking any shit from you on my supposed "stupidity".
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 06:44am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 06:33am
It also comes from undertanding how "the hockey stick" data and program were debunked; being aware of the embarrasement last quarter when Gore's scientist declared October the hottest ever based on obvious data errors (in fact, it was colder than average); it comes from an understanding of astro-physicis; from reading "The Skeptical Environmentalist"; from an understanding of politicians; from reading famous quotes ("The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." –H.L. Mencken);
IT even comes from a forty-year old episode of "The Twilight Zone". I remember an episode were everyone was sweaty. The Earth was moving too close to the Sun and everyone was going to die. Then in the last scene, we find that it was all a dream. We see a poor woman lying in bed sweating profusely because she has a fever and she was dreaming about the heat. But it turns out that the people attending to her are bundled in coats because in reality, the Earth is hurtling AWAY from the Sun and everyone is going to die.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 07:18am
Finally, it's based on experience. The cult of global warming is, basically, a cult of college kids looking for something to believe in.
Answer me this: When was that last time a mass movement of college kids got anything right?
Exactly! They never have and they never will.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 07:25am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 07:25am
Darin, who did you vote for back in Novmember?
What was HIS take on the "cult of global warming"?
Will the NEXT GOP nominee (2012) say something different and 180 the Republican platform?
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 07:29am
Darin, who did you vote for back in Novmember?
What was HIS take on the "cult of global warming"?
Will the NEXT GOP nominee (2012) say something different and 180 the Republican platform?
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 07:29am
Come on Mask, pay attention!
First of all, I voted for a "her" last November. And before you quibble about Presidential vs. VP vote remember that, by hoping McCain would die withing a few weeks in office, my vote for Palin was my Presidential vote.
HER position on global warming was, and I quote, "Drill, baby Drill!"
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 07:55am
And then there's this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123144986295465515.html
Global Warming Horror Flick Put on Ice
Val Kilmer's new vehicle is pre-empted by reality.
How embarrassing is it when you produce a horror movie based on global warming and when the time comes to release it, the planet is experiencing some of the coldest weather in decades? Such is the case with The Thaw starring Val Kilmer. Filmed in Canada last summer, it should be ready for release by now but even though the trailer has been produced, no specific release date has been announced. Perhaps the producers realize how much of a laughingstock this movie would become if a movie based on the premise of global warming were released when their potential audience is freezing.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 07:56am
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 07:29am
Yes, as will the Dem nominee. The evidence of the next ice age will be overwhelming by 2012. The cult of global warming will diminish over then next decade or so, just like the cult of population bomb adherents (including me) lost their faith over the decade of the 1990s. Your role, Mask, as the "voice of reason" is to make sure they don't go David Horowitz on you.
Here's what I mean: when a person's faith is challenged the best possible outcome is to engage in soul searching that leads to a deeper understanding of the values that drove the faith in the first place. So, no, we are not all going to die because of global warming, but the "evergreen" values of conservation, respect for nature, sustainable development, and sustainable economic activity are values that are always in season. One should respect and embrace these values even if we're not facing imminent extinction for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. Most believers in global warming will follow this path.
There are two other options: they are the Jesse Helms scenario and David Horowitz scenario. Sometimes, when a person loses their faith, they flounder and are incapable of securing the deeper understanding that reconciles the old values with the new understanding of reality. In the Jesse Helms scenario, the person is so frightened of a world where his values can't be justified by reason that the person embraces blind faith. In this case someone like Gore will believe in AGW despite reams of evidence because he won't allow his faith to every be challenged again because he's too frightened of living without his faith.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 08:21am
The David Horowitz scenario is the opposite. When a person is confronted with evidence from reality that challenges the faith, the person realized that his faith was misplaced and overreacts. He thinks, "If I was wrong about this, then everything I ever believed is wrong and the complete opposite of what I used to believe must be the truth." Hence, Horowitz went from a Red Diaper baby to the most virulent anti-communist on the fact of the planet.
Here endeth the lesson.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 08:22am
Ten years from now, my 13-year old will watch "The Thaw" and laugh they way we watched and laughed at "Refer Madness".
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 08:26am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009
DARIN,
Remember, the rule: When all the votes are counted in a fair and transparent process to professional specs, the DEM (FRANKEN) wins. When the SCOTUS bulldozes in, it is the Repugnant who gets installed in office (LOSER in '00).
But since you do not understand how America works, here a few more memes from your media masters for you to angrily ape as if you had thought of them yourself. Check off your personal favorites for white-knuckle, vein-pooping, drool-spewing rage:
__ Guns don't kill people! People with stem cells kill people!
__ They will greet US forces invading their nation on blatantly false premises by tossing sweets and flowers!!! (although, okay, it does seem like they have to exhaust the supply of improvised explosive devices first)
__ "Mission accomplished"
__ The government must get off Warren Jeffs back! He was just minding his own business being a fundementalist in his compound with his 50 wives and taste for minors!
__ Clinton went on a homicidal rampage @ Ruby Ridge!
__ Terri Schiavo is not brain dead! Look right now as she has started break dancing on her break board while writing "Help!" in her web log!
__ Save the Stem Cell "People", Kill Real Kids!
__ Al Franken stormed in and held the Minnesota canvassing board hostage waving his WMDs in their face until the Republican state supreme court justices that sat on the board agreed to his electoral heist, as Texas Senator John CroMag has decisively proven with his Ouji board!
__ When the professional scientists at Union for Concerned Sceintists (inlcuding Nobel Prize winenrs) claim decisive evidence for climate change, they have proven that...they are really college students in disguise pulling an elaborate prank!
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 08:32am
A Moral Titan speaketh! When they are not praying for Supreme Court justices to die, or New Orleans to be vaporized as sin city, or for stem cells to be saved and real kids incinerated, here is how the Moral Titan reasons...
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 07:55am : "remember that, by hoping McCain would die withing a few weeks in office, my vote for Palin was my Presidential vote"...
Yup, he said it. Perhaps in the hope that Ayatollah Todd and Saint Sarah could engineer an "accident" on the staircase for Olde John. And then Alaska would finally be liberated from the grip of Washington and the Bottom 48's black helicopter genocidal tyranny as Ayatollah Todd and Saint Sarah could "fire" Alaska from the union, succesion from above, thus achieving an important rightwing goal.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 08:41am
Darin,
How many of you guys do you think are left? I know when you listen to Rush and Sean it makes you think as if "It's just a few tree huggers and the LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA and Hollywood, who agree that global warming is real and anthropogenic"....
but the polls don't seem to bear that out.
Sure you've got your 28% (same 28% who think Bush was a fine President...talk about 'myths'!)...and all those "scientists" (who just happen to be economists, sociologists, English lit majors, and a smattering of geo-climatologists who JUST HAPPEN to have received some grants from the "Energy Future Coalition" which JUST HAPPENS to be a subsidiary of the "America Energy Future Group"...which JUST HAPPENS to get funding from ...the American Petroleum Institute)....but that's it.
You couldn't even get your 2008 GOP nominee to even "raise questions" about global warming being REAL, much less that it wasn't man-made.
So...do you and the guys who think we "really didn't land on the Moon"...really MATTER anymore, especially politically???
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 08:50am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 08:22am
Also can be called the "Arianna Huffington" or "David Brock" or even "Bob Barr" scenario.
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 08:54am
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 08:32am
Phil,
With all due respect (which is none)...
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
Bush should have said, Objective 1 of the mission accomplished; Removal of a genocidal dictator.
__ Clinton went on a homicidal rampage @ Ruby Ridge! WTF? it was Bush 41 who went on a homicidal rampaged at Ruby Ridge (Killing Randy Weaver's daughter with a high powered sniper rifle while she held her 10-month old baby). Clinton was President during Waco. The story on that is that it was a PR stunt designed to cajole Congress into greater funding for the ATF that went south and lead to the deaths of 74 innocnet women and children.)
You mentioned Foster earlier. No, he wasn't murdered. He killed himself because of guilt. He felt responsible for the deaths at waco. The reason a Clinton murder conspiracy developed is because (I believe) Foster committed suicide in his office and Hilliary's people moved the body to the park to avoid exposing her legal files court review.
Where do you find most scientists? On college campuses. They are the leaders of the devoted following of students, Duh! As to the "Union" of concerned scientists. The union is under assult from a successionist movement. I expect this union will have even less luck than the last Union to experience this problem.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 08:57am
Also can be called the "Arianna Huffington" or "David Brock" or even "Bob Barr" scenario.
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 08:54am
Excellent observation. Maybe you are paying attention.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 08:58am
Okay, so you got GW wrong. At least you got taxes right. If you read only one article from the WSJ all year, do yourself a favor of read this one where the WSJ say increasing taxes is inevitable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123172112955172337.html
Take It From McCain's Advisers: The GOP Would Raise Taxes
A political party shouldn't rely on a dead idea
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 09:18am
Who made the original complaint against Blagojevich, to Fitzgerald?
Seems as though knowing that name would help us to know that impeaching the governor (and moving another into his place) wasn't the whole purpose of this mess.
Posted by SparklesPlenty at 01/12/2009 @ 09:18am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 08:58am
I am. And the drift isn't towards a bunch of "ex-Commies becoming die-hard Republicans" as the volitile Mr Horowitz did....
it's a lot of moderate to even conservative conservatives drifting away from the Hard Right position and downright silliness of a Party that was hijacked by the LVLIB Religious Right and SJCHERMAK Limbaugh Right.
And a 2008 GOP Presidential candidate who did NOT say that "There ain't no such thang as GW and it sure as hell ain't our fault"....and likely no 2012...2016...2020...2024 Republican nominee who will either.
Now...why is that???
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 10:30am
And the drift isn't towards a bunch of "ex-Commies becoming die-hard Republicans" ...
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 10:30am
Mask, Mask, Mask.
There's a drift towards Conservatism that's older than dirt.
It's called aging.
For the past 20 generations the "kids" have been Liberals by a 10-1 margin. Hell, in the '60s every kid was a liberal and yet today, Conservatives outnumber Liberals 2:1.
If you want your Liberal permanent majority all you have to do is stop people from growing up.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 2:04pm
Actually, Darin, your info seems outdated....as does much of your ideology...heheh.
New demographics, for one, show that younger evangelical Christians are more accepting of gay rights and putting less importance on abortion than their elders.
This is not just the usual "younger people are more liberal" move...since the group it entails were STRONGLY opposed to gay rights and STRONGLY "pro-life" (at the same age) in the 80s and into the 90s.
Additionally, issue polling is showing a distinct swing away from "Reagan principles" by age groups well upto the 50s.
YOUR basis was on groups that "grew up" with Nixon, Ford, Carter and the basic 60s liberalism and GOP liberalism of that error. That age has passed.
Now (as of 2012) we will have an entire generation (or more) who remember two Presidents (due to 8 year terms)...
one, a moderate Democrat, who gave us peace, prosperity, budget surpluses, and moderate social/domestic issue policies...
and the other, a ideological Republican, who gave us deficits, recession, massive debt, quaqmire wars, and idiotic stunts like "Heckuva job Brownie" and Terri Schiavo.
Age isn't the end-all factor...successful and failed Presidencies help a lot too.
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/12/2009 @ 06:33am
Don't worry Darin. Releasing the carbon sequestered over millions of years, in a couple of hundred years, couldn't POSSIBLY have any adverse effect.
And the fact that our bio-system has many tipping points and the earth is too complex to model, long term, hence accurate predictions of the future are, at best speculation (Imagine that!), means they are all wrong.
Carry on.
Posted by Malcontent at 01/12/2009 @ 10:21pm
John Nichols, your article is very timely. An impeachment before inauguration could help return the rule of law to the USA.
Posted by BrianCady413 at 01/13/2009 @ 11:35am