Tuesday, June 14

Kerry, the Constitution and Impeaching the President

According to the Constitution of the United States, Amendment 14, Section 3, John Kerry has no right to serve in Congress, not to mention run for President of the United States.

The Constitution says: "Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

In 1971, while American troops fought in Viet Nam, John Kerry went to Paris and, by his own admission, said he had talked to "both delegations" and went on to explain that he meant both Communist delegations. He returned from Paris to endorse the Viet Cong's "peace plan" as if the pronouncements of Communist leaders deserved to be taken at face value. The Viet Cong's foreign minister, Madame Binh, had told him, he said, that 'if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal, the prisoners of war would be returned.' The fact that she said so, he suggested, proved that President Nixon was lying: 'I think this negates very clearly the argument of the president that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.'"

He did not go to Paris as a representative of the US Government, charged with working out a peace plan. He went to Paris as a war protestor intent on undermining the US government. That is treason.

And now this man, this underhanded, sneaking, lying traitor has the effrontery to lead an effort to impeach President Bush. He says Bush wanted Hussein out. So did he (Kerry) and everyone else!

Now we know Hussein actually did have WMDs, as we see now from reports of weapons showing up in Syria, etc. and roadside bombs reconstructed from double-chambered chemical weapons systems. So the Democrats now have to back-pedal, saying that US troops let the weapons get away. (Which is an admission that they existed.)

You'll never get a Democrat to admit he was wrong. That takes character. And honesty.

Reasons for impeachment are: Bribery, treason, “high crimes and misdemeanors." Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category. The big argument seems to be that the President lied when he led us to war in Iraq. That argument shouldn't go very far since all of the world's intelligence sources claimed Hussein had WMDs, the French and Russians had provided them, and 71 members of Congress voted for the war.

All of these voted to invade Iraq: YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
And not a single one voted that way because the President told him/her to but because of the reports they saw from intelligence agencies.

One act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord.
And that's what we have here. Kerry and his Krew, who believed the original intelligence on WMDs and who said for years that Hussein must be removed, now are trying to obfuscate all that, AND Kerry's treason, and turn their disgrace onto President Bush.

4 comments:

JNelson said...

Quite a lot of anger over someone that has already begun to fade from the political scene. I will not argue for Kerry's record, it is nearly as dismal and waffled as every other senetor in our country. However, the Bush record is hardly better. Mind you the Downing Street Memo released last month showed a contemplated lie to the American people and the proceding dishonesty about the real reasons for going to war. You already know where I stand on WMD and Iraq.

But also don't forget the Bush Family's dishonest history. Nearly 30% of Hitlers foreign military spending went to American companies that Prescott Bush was a large benefactor of. In fact, he had to go up in front of congress to defend himself so he would not be named as aiding the enemy. There is a familiy history of corporatism (which is essentially fascism).

You're wallowing in the idea that Kerry went to Paris for treasonous purposes. If talking to the enemy in an attempt to establish peace is treason then Thomas Jefferson (yes, the founding father) must have been lynched for saying, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Democracies rely on people speaking out and taking the initiative both in domestic programs but also in contest of international policy. Is the EU treasonous for supporting North Korea's multi-lateral talks, or Iran's Nuclear Peace plan? NO. Finding compromises that will prevent further violence is hardly treason. Yet, deceiving the people over the real reasons for a war (whether they're just or not) seems treasonous to me.

Sunnye T said...

Yes, a LOT of anger. I remember the Viet Nam war. I remember what Kerry did. I can't express strongly enough the lack of respect that I have for him and his ilk. He and Fonda should have been hanged first and asked questions later.

The "Bush Record," as you call it, is much better. He learned to fly jets, he served his full term and received an honorable discharge. And what he didn't do is equally important -- he didn't consort with the enemy when we were at war. THAT is worth more than everything Kerry did.

You need to read the reports of Kerry's visit -- not the Democratic whitewash but the real reports from the early '70s.

Talking to the enemy at any time when we are at war is NOT the responsibillity of the average citizen. It is the very definition of treason.

Dissent is arguing against the war, even demonstrating against it -- treason is meeting with the enemy during wartime. It's the very definition of the term.And to make matters even worse, he did it to intentionally undermine the war efforts of the government.

Please stop spouting the Democratic propaganda about President Bush "deceiving" the country.

That is a political lie that doesn't belong in honest discourse.

Sunnye T said...

Oh, and by the way. In case you didn't read it elsewhere in the comments to these blogs, I don't believe in blaming people today for what their ancestors did. That's a senseless distraction. My great-grandfather (one great; my grandfather fought in the Civil War) was a slave owner. Should I feel guilty about that? I sure don't.

He lived in a very different world from mine. He thought differently and understood differently. He was quite a character and I wish I could have known him.

But if you judge me because my great grandfather was a slave owner and my grandfather fought with Hood, Lee and Pickett, then that's your problem, not mine. And if you do so, you make assumptions about who I am that have nothing to do with me.

So don't blame the present family for what happened when they were children or before they were born. They had no control over that.

Besides, you may find, if you study your own genealogy, that rule may well apply in your own situation.

JNelson said...

Support your criticism with some facts, and maybe a bit of truth. Like I said before, Kerry's record is hardly worth supporting, however peaceful compromises with "the enemy" in an international dialogue in a neutral state are the essence of peaceful solution. There may have been some quiet negotiations that went below the public radar, just as negotiations today go under the radar, but these were for peaceful purposes remember. Kerry's Congressional Record in 1971 over the event was:

"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts

Troop withdrawl in exchange for the prisoners of war. Hmmm, that is cerainly not treason. And Kerry was hardly "the average citizen"...

Also, the UN and its various sponsored summits and meetings, such as Kerry's visit and Bush's meetings leading up to the Iraq war, are all apart of international politics. It is the way the system is structured and the method to get around the wartime interference to actually promote peace for the people.

Don't forget what that war did to the country and the people. To this day people are born with birth defects because of the dioxin left in the soil from our Agent Orange.

You and your Republican "lies". These are simple facts from established news sources. I'm not bending truths or creating news. These are facts that, if you connect the dots, will create a dishonest pattern. I hate to acknowledge this because it is depressing, on the other hand, show me facts that point to something different. I have acknowledged your facts about Kerry, now it's your turn. There has been a lot of information that is intentionally kept from the public eye and even attempts to completely conceal it. Don't forget the Privacy Act of 1971 - there has been clear violations - such as today with reports of the FAA keeping secret files of flight travelers. www.politiconduit.org.

You only make one comment about this. "Please stop spouting the Democratic propaganda about President Bush "deceiving" the country." Tell me some facts that discredit the official minutes of a British Parliment memo - the Downing Street Memo. And some facts discrediting Richard Clarke's Testimony before the 9-11 Commission and his new book. How about the soldiers' testimonies stating that they were in Iraq before the US declared diplomacy over? Please, because these accounts only point one direction and I have yet to see credible sources telling me otherwise.

By the way, I'm not criticizing your because of your history. My great great uncle was Colonal Custer - and I am not ashamed of my lineage. However, the Bush family is much different than your families example for so many reasons. The main one being that Prescott Bush was only his grandfather, and he knew him quite well. Then Prescott's businesses went to GWHB, clearly his dad and very close. See what I'm saying? There is a clear conflict of interest and a family history that is worth something in the contemporary political climate. See, American Dynasty, written by Kevin Phillips who also wrote the book, The Emerging Republican Majority in praise of Nixon's 68 campaign.

Contributors