The "I" Word

HUBGRAM
Editorial you won't find
in conventional media...

Okay, let’s cute to the chase: What exactly does it take to get someone impeached?

Not very much if we can judge by Bill Clinton.

It seems that the bulk of people are willing to overlook everything but sexual proclivities.

You can , it appears, get away with literally murder and no one gives a hoot as long as you don’t hurt sperm that’s making it’s mind up about what to become. No conflict there!....

That seems to be the crux of the problem.

We might want to explore the reason for this before we go further. Why is no one with the authority to effectuate change willing to take on the subject.
Could it be that most are gainfully employed by the government? Or otherwise gainfully employed by a contractor dependent on government generosity and that talk of the “I” word would be embarrassing, or potentially lethal to the employer?

We later find that the search for the “ombudsman” who will truly support us is flawed because such an individual does not exist now.

Yes, but there are legitimate cases that seem to search for an Impeachment solution—after all, how can we continue with smoke and mirrors policies and legislation that benefits no one except those who hold imperial rank, hear strange voices or command military budgets?


So then why in the presence of charges that go up the ying-yang are we hearing so little about the subject. What presupposes us to consider such an extreme solution.

Ah, because the Framers never thought of a less painful way to adjudicate changes in the system….maybe they, too, were naïve believing that anyone so blessed with the highest office, would never do anything to embarrass himself or his party.


But as far as a rationale for such extreme action we don’t have to travel far.

I mean where would you want to begin: How about lying to the public about the Iraq War. That would be a great clincher.

Along the way, we could point to a whole series of likely Impeachment charges.

For example, what about Bush’s violation of citizen’s privacy rights?
Aren’t we entitled to privacy under the Constitution; shouldn’t our president be especially aware of the provisions of the law? Shouldn’t he understand that it is illegal to listen in on telephone calls without going through the special courts and getting approval for wire-tapping or data mining? A case could be made that Bush thinks he’s above the Constitution and can make whatever laws he decides pretty much on the spot. I would give that a ten as a qualifier for Impeachment.

What about the president’s influence on what happened in the Justice Department in the biggest mystery of the year as to why ten district attorneys were fired without cause. But, more importantly, nobody seems to know who is responsible here since everyone has developed short term memory.
Most of us, know if only intuitively, that Rove has his fingerprints all over this and the fact that the White House is stonewalling does not mitigate serious concerns about the Executive side-stepping the laws of the land.

What about the Energy companies’ apparent collusion and conflict with anti-competitive regulations that auger against their coming together behind closed doors, much less sanctioning energy policy for this country without transparency and in violation of the law. A step that resulted in outrageous increases in the cost of energy and unprovoked attacks on countries with large reserves of petroleum. Why was that allowed? Was that in the best interests of the American people?

Why was Cheney allowed to appoint his own venders without competitive bidding in the Iran conflict? Isn’t that in direct conflict with about how the vendor system is supposed to work in a free democracy. Isn’t that in conflict with the direct interests of the people?

What about the anti-missile shield? Aren’t the American people entitled to know about the massive cover-ups and the fact that the systems do not work but are siphoning off government dollars that could be more constructively used in other needed places.

What about the fact that the government has given US tax dollars to religious institutions arbitrarily—without oversight-- so that they may decide how these dollars should be allocated—including maintenance of their own installations: Ideas that totally conflict with the separation of church and state provisions of the Constitution..

What about allowing industry to hire employees from overseas under the HB1 program or the arbitrary shipping of ideas overseas? Are these decisions in the best interests of the American people?.

And we’ve only just scratched the surface.

According to what I’ve read about the Consttution, a government that is not responsive to the needs of the American people should be changed by the people and the provision that makes change possible are the rules of impeachment. These may not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors—or they may indeed, but they sure as hell represent leadership that does not reflect the best interests of the America people.

Americans, at the very least, should not be deprived of its freedoms and protections; Americans should not have to worry that they are more in danger from their own government, than any foreign threat of ‘terrorism.’ Americans should have privy to the benefits of habeas corpus, the ability to consult with one’s legal adviser, the protection of the First Amendment and so on, which have clearly been sidelined in this government that rules unilaterally by fiat.

It’s time we took these hundreds of violations of American’s rights and declare that we are not going to take these abuses any longer.

Pass out the pikes and on to the battlements, guys and gals…

More to come…

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon