Saturday, July 28, 2007

Impeachment

Is constitutionally designed to be the POLITICAL remedy to punish POLITICAL crimes. Especially those subversions of the Constitution which redound to the POLITICAL benefit of the malefactors in High Places.
At least that’s seems to have been how Madison and the others present at the Founding regrded it: "If [the President] be himself a party to the guilt[,] he can be impeached and prosecuted."- (THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 626; Max Farrand ed., 1911) (reprinting James Madison’s notes).
The Pukes totally misused the process when they attacked Clinton; but they did it primarily to REMOVE impeachment as a viable remedy for the corruptions of power: to neutralize it in advance of the Fascist Coup they had already planned (as well as 'payback' for Nixon).
This presents the country with a difficult choice, if we wish to preserve our form of government: We can, through out legislature, bring impeachment; or we can rise in open rebellion, drag the criminal, corrupt fuckers into the streets, toss a coupla ropes over the streetlight poles on Penn. Ave, and pull a Mussolini on their fascist asses.
That's right, boyos, you got two choices--two choices, only two: impeachment or the guillotine.
Choose, you criminal fux! CHOOSE: Step aside or get it in the fucking neck!

(Addendum: A post substantially similar to this was deemed 'too' something--inciteful (pardon the pun)?--to be permitted to be read on Corrente. Not bitching, just sayin'.)

9 comments:

bringiton said...

They're really peaceable folk over at Corrente, very smart, very sophisticated, very passionate and very peaceable. I got chastised for suggesting pie throwing, so you see where the limits are and that's OK, their site and we all have our boundaries. I'd like to think there are remedies other than what you suggest. Trial and imprisonment strikes me as more civilized, and more useful as a deterrent and as a corrective. We can be better people, no need for capital punishment.

Anonymous said...

darlin' woody, pls see cabdrollery, where I stood up for you too, but let's play fair, mussolini and mistress was a bit too gruesome.

from Ruth

kelley b. said...

Woody, buddy, the Feds are gonna come after you if you keep talking like this!

Besides, Cheneyburton & fiends dig violence. It's what their paranoid little minds live for. I really think they've been awfully puzzled why there hasn't been violence in the streets here at home before now.

Remember: they have the biggest guns, they know how to use them, and they've hired orcs who love to get messy.

I understand the frustration, but ya gotta think! The non-violent road is a real pain, but it's the only way we can deal with these pirates right now.

Jim said...

Calling for violence against government officials is a bad idea in a police state, that's all I'm saying.

However, I always advocate tarring and feathering as a wonderful compromise.

BlakNo1 said...

What's the penalty for treason again?

LittleBrother said...

Four years after the revolution and the old king's execution
Four years after I remember how those courtiers took their final vow
String up every aristocrat
Out with the priests Let them live on their fat
Four years after we started fighting
Marat keeps on with his writing
Four years after the Bastille fell
He still recalls the old battle yell
Down with all of the ruling class
Throw all the generals out on their arse...
------------------------------------

Mi hermano mayor, I admire your willingness to be a canary in this hellish deathtrap of a coal mine-- the apocalyptic New Amerikan Empire. But I see the reaction you inspire, perhaps especially the kind and sincere cautions, as more of a sign of the times than a refutation on the merits of your comments.

I'm probably looking for cats to comb, as my Sicilian grandmother used to put it, in the bilious backwash of the Ward Churchill and Norman Finklestein Ox-Bow Incidents. But when I read your putatively incendiary remarks, I take it as a dispassionate analysis, presenting the perfectly valid hypothesis that if a government deliberately eschews or vitiates mechanisms explicitly incorporated in its constitution to peacefully forestall or mediate conflict and crisis, that such government is perforce inviting anarchy and violence to fill the vacuum. I don't think a fair reading supports a conclusion that Woody is particularly advocating, much less encouraging, revolutionary mayhem. He's just pointing out the bifurcated trends resulting from the criminal administration's systematic annihilation of legal restraints and respect for law over power.

This may be a jeremiad of sorts, but it's hardly incendiary or inflammatory in its own right. But the people shushing you for your own good seem to feel that blogs, and you, simply can't risk presenting provocative comments in reasonable expectation of a fair reading and discussion. Anything "borderline" or hyperbolic or edgy should either be cleaned up ("self-policed") or tactfully suppressed.

The issue of the Homeland Security Nazg├╗l being ready to fuck up your shit, and the shit of the blogger you visit, on the slightest pretext is in my view problematic at best. It's not a question of whether this threat is real; it's a question of what it means to acquiesce to fear of persecution.

In recent weeks, I'm becoming more and more aware of a Nice-Nellie middle coalescing in mainstream blog sites. That twit Joan Walsh at Salon.com, and Arianna Huffington's trash-tabloid-skin "Huffington Post" are going back and forth about how comments should be controlled by the host.

There seems to be a depressing consensus that it is OK, and in accordance with ephemeral dogma about The Blogging Community and standards of decency, for sites to censor and moderate comments in order to weed out those perceived as mean-spirited or advocating violence or other illegal acts.

The practical consequence of this inanity on HuffPo, for example, is that some automated screening software, or perhaps a low-paid flack scanning a million incoming comments, will make a quick call to zap or not to zap. Smaller one-person bloggers are more capricious and arbitrary in banning and censoring, unapologetically exercising the Harsh Parent dogma of My House, My Say Who Lives Here. Yet bloggers often seem to resent having to discuss their editorial choices and methods, and in my view sites like HuffPo and Salon are trying to disingenuously have it both ways: encourage spontaneous comments, provided they are spontaneously in accordance with ambiguous Comment Policy rules. I doubt that they tangle themselves much in the sophisticated dynamics of free expression controlled by seemingly-benevolent cat-and-mouse methods composed of lethal paradoxical injunctions. One musn't be a "purist", after all.

For all of the nascent hope that the criminal regime is tottering and in free fall, it's painfully obvious that The Fear has settled like a fog onto the Bloglands.

I'm sorry that you're being marginalized and locked in the closet for your own good by the ostensible progressive blogging community. Although it provides more than my MDR for irony.

Vaya con Dios, mi hermano mayor!

PS: I lack the strength to edit the awkward switching from second to third person. Sorry about that.

dogger feland said...

i say storm the castle and try to make a democracy for real this time. and be this a police state or not, no one is going to come a-knocking at my door for treason, because the simple truth is that it is all talk. the federales know that people will sit around and yip at bars and in blogs, without ever acting. i could even burn bush in effigy in my front yard, mass produce special models for others to likewise burn, and my neighbors would only shrug their shoulders at the car alarm-like complaint. so strike out without fear, because few listen and fewer take it to heart.

Jerry said...

Sitting here, in a place that until fairly recently was a Police State that would make Cheney cream his undies, I can tell you that Amerika is not a police state.

Yet.

What appalls me most about the bunch in charge is that they don't even pretend to respect the law. Their regard for the American people is so low that they've dropped any pretense of a representative democracy.

I'm a peace-loving guy, but I love the law more, I love America more, and I love freedom most of all. Ultimately, when legal recourse fails, when the provisions of the constitution are ignored, it is the responsibility of the American people to restore the government. This is not revolution, it is simply the government of the people reasserting itself.

It's time the bastards fell.

Woody - if you can find a clip of Stiff Little Fingers doing "Suspect Device" you're golden.

"they take away our freedom, in the name of liberty..."

I think that was 1979. Give or take.

So, really, the feds aren't going to come after you. Dissent is not popular, perhaps, but it is still possible. Another lesson I learned from people who went through it, a lesson that likely we will never have to use but it's still best to know: If you never negotiate, if you steadfastly refuse to accept that you did wrong, you are useless in a show trial. That is much easier said than done; Kafka's portrayal of people who eventually assume that if they are on trial they must be guilty of something played out with scary accuracy here.

Fon said...

Nice blog. I will keep reading. Please take the time to visit my blog about Free Guitar Lesson