Upon entering office, U.S. Presidents must pledge:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Similarly, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives must affirm:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If our public servants aren’t held to their oaths, then the oaths are rendered meaningless.

In similar fashion, Bruce Fein has opined in the San Francisco Chronicle, that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney have violated the Constitution in a variety of ways, and indeed deserve censure.  Here’s a piece of what Fein had to say:

By wielding the threat of international terrorism, the Bush-Cheney team put the nation on a permanent war footing – the first time in history that war has been undertaken against a tactic. They maintained that the entire post-9/11 world is an active battlefield where United States military force may be used to kill suspected members of al Qaeda irrespective of international boundaries.

They claimed executive privilege and state secrets to conduct secret government – thereby circumventing political and legal accountability. This included directives to former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to flout congressional subpoenas for testimony. They detained hundreds of people (including American citizens) as enemy combatants without accusation or trial. They authorized torture (waterboarding and extraordinary rendition), abductions, secret prisons and illegal surveillance of American citizens.

Like its immediate predecessors, the 110th Congress eagerly yielded its authorities – even the power of the purse – to the president. The Iraqi War Resolution, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, and the declination to hold Rove in contempt of Congress were emblematic.

If left unrebuked, the Bush-Cheney usurpations of power will become part of the constitutional firmament and risk creating a safe harbor for future presidential abuses. Every member of Congress, moreover, is required to take an oath to “support (the) Constitution” pursuant to Article VI. There is no corresponding oath to support the Republican or Democratic parties or to subordinate the Constitution in the name of political harmony. Censure would be no novelty.

Read the whole article.

by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published December 6, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5596.html

In a thrilling, thought-provoking 4-part video series on Youtube (Part 1, 2, 3, 4) Stefan Molyneux of www.freedomainradio.com declares that “Statism is Dead.” At least in the moral sense, he is completely right. In reality, the Ron Paul rEVOLution and non-statists everywhere have a lot of teaching to do! [By the way, I particularly like Part 3, a movie where everyone, including most libertarians are compared to livestock. Funny, and it holds a lot of truth.]

In Part 2, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” Mr. Molyneux takes a shot at one of my heroes, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas for not pressing for the impeachment of George Bush.  The charge is that not only  did Bush purposefully mislead the American public about the Iraq War, but he also is committing the murder of his own Army.

“Even Ron Paul, the fabled hero and defender of virtue, refuses to press for the impeachment won’t even say the guy should be fired! Let alone face the death penalty for genocide.

If I claim to be superhero [ie, the statist American government which in this case, sorry, includes Dr. Paul] entirely devoted to moral righteousness and the protection of the innocent, and I see a child being beaten to death right in front of me, and I step over this murder in order to give someone a parking ticket, can anyone believe my moral claims ever again?”

I cannot and will not defend the good doctor here, as I share Molyneux’s conviction per this excerpt from my July article “Book Synopsis: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi“. I challenge anyone who has read the book to defend Paul from Bugliosi’s claim that Bush should be tried for the murder of our servicemen and women in Iraq. Here is most of my article:

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is far more than an anti-Bush rant. Bugliosi, famed for his successful prosecution of Charles Manson for murder, clearly outlines a solid legal case and jurisdiction details for placing Bush on trial in an American court for the murder of the 4,124+ American soldiers killed so far in the Iraq war. Bugliosi puts forth a solid argument that:

1. Bush specifically intended to have American soldiers killed in Iraq
2. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rowe led their administration to deliberately deceived Congress and the American people into believing Saddam was an imminent threat to the national security of the United States via “ties to al-Qaeda” and “WMD” while being informed by all intelligence agencies to the contrary that Hussein was not, and
3. Bush knowingly, even eagerly, decided to launch the preemptive invasion, all the time while knowing it was not the act of self-defense he claimed it was.

Bugliosi delivers the most damning character assassination of Bush I have ever read, though scathing, is also utterly objective – and mostly done by simply documenting his words and actions, both pre- and post-9/11. In addition, he has a great habit of prelisting and disarming possible retorts from the opposition.

I specifically like Bugliosi’s point that since murder has no statute of limitation and that an attorney general from any state could bring a murder charge against Bush at any time. Even if no one takes up Bugliosi’s charge in 2009, Bush will be served with justice like the US-backed Chilean dictator/murderer Augusto Pinochet, taken to court after a 31-year delay. Perhaps the possibility will keep him awake at night, a persistent fear in the depths of his weak mind.

Here is a long snippet on the Afghan war from pages 214-219:

Combined with Sherry Baker’s article that outlines the case (pdf link) to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others as war criminals for Torture, if We the People can pull this off, we just might just might be one big step closer to getting our country back.

“In December of 2001, just a few months after 9/11, the American military learned that Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora, a dense mountain range in southeastern Afghanistan Instead of sending thousands of American soldiers to go into the mountain range to capture or kill Bin Laden, Bush did not send one single American soldier One of the warlords, in disbelief and frustration told the assembled press who had converged on Tora Bora: “If America wants to capture Osama, why aren’t they trying?” A top aide to [the warlord fighting al-Qaeda] said: “I don’t think the United States wants to capture Osama. We know where he is, we tell them and they do nothing. So they are not as serious as they say they are.”

From the day of the invasion (commenced by air strikes) in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, through December 7, when the Taliban regime collapsed, not one single American soldier died in combat. Why? Because the real fighting in the Afghan war was being done almost exclusively by the Northern Alliance. Our military was only there in an advisory and support capacity and our air force, from its safe position high in the clouds beyond the range of the very limited Taliban antiaircraft artillery, dropped bombs on the almost medieval country. If you want to call this “fighting” a war, then you have a different view than I do of what this word means…

A man is seated with his wife at a restaurant table. An armed killer enters the restaurant, shoots and kills the wife, then flees. The man, who everyone would automatically assume would pursue the killer since it was his wife who was killed, and since, it turns out, he was fully armed to do so, decides not to. He tells a stranger at a nearby table that he would appreciate it if he would pursue the killer, which the third party does. That’s exactly what Bush did in the Afghanistan war. Three thousand Americans were murdered, Bush vowed to go after the perpetrators, but instead asked the Northern Alliance, which never lost one of its members during 9/11, to in effect “get even” with the 9/11 killers for us. Shocking? Unbelievable? Yes, but 100 percent true. And through all of this, Bush’s approval rating remained extremely high (84%…) and we learned how very brave and ballsy Bush was.

With respect to Bush not wanting to use one American soldier to fight the Afghan war, it wasn’t until March 4^th, 2002, five months after the war commenced, that American soldiers started fighting in a normal, military way. This, from the March 5, 2002, edition of the New York Times: “In some of the fiercest fighting of the five-month war in Afghanistan, American ground forces took the lead in a large-scale combat operation for the first time

The rest of the commentary on Bush’s pre- and post-9/11 lies and actions, especially the section on his criminal intent, are just as worthwhile. Bugliosi complains of a “virtual blackout” from the mainstream media, just like the media blackout of the Bush impeachment hearing last week, where Bugliosi also spoke. (Sound familiar? For a great set of articles exploring and damning the US’s propaganda ministry please try the latest from Dan Alba’s column “Detain This.”) After a lengthy search for a publisher, Vanguard Press, a division of Perseus Books, courageously agreed to publish the book in May, and it now looks like they will profit. Since May, the book has sold 130,000 copies and shot up from #16 to #9 on the New York Times Bestseller list on July 27.

Well, the fact remains that where other authors stopped short in condemning Bush using legal tactics, Bugliosi empathically ended their sentence. Bush’s alleged acts and state of mind meet the legal definition of murder. The same case exists for the murder of 100,000+ Iraqis, although American jurisdiction does not apply. Whether you are cackling with glee or staring in disbelief, Bugliosi’s book is to be saluted. First Amendment believers can rejoice!

So the big question is will the new POTUS pardon Bush? Will Bush or the new POTUS pardon Cheney, Rowe, and the rest? From what I have read online, I do think there is a fairly high chance that some legal teams are chomping at the bit to go after Bush after Jan 20th.

And if the new POTUS (assuming it is Obama, more on this in my next article) DOES pardon Bush, what a message this will send to the American people! It could rip the moral fabric of our corrupt statist dualopoly wide open!  What do you think?

Time for me to write to Campaign for Liberty to make sure we are on Bugliosi’s side. There is nothing unpatriotic about fettering or avoiding our legal system. Does the “Rule of Law” ring any bells?

In Liberty,

Jake, the Champion of the Constitution

www.CampaignForLiberty.com

(photo source)   [Reach the Author Here!]

… A thousand lies,
And a good disguise.
Hit ‘em right between the eyes!
Hit ‘em right between the eyes!
When you walk away,
Nothing more to say.
See the lightning in your eyes!
See‘em running for their lives!

Now dance, f***er, dance!
He never had a chance!

- Offspring, “You’re Going to Go Far, Kid“  We’ll see what chance Bush has from escaping the Justice of We the People after Jan 20.

___________________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

___________________________________________________________________________

Nolan Chart Facebook Group Page Created

Summary of Articles for Jake, the Champion of the Constitution (12/03/2008)

___________________________________________________________________________

Other Recommended Articles by the Author

Response to Disgruntled Reader on “Malalai Joya” Article
Published: August 11, 2008
The pain and psychological shock trauma of 9/11 and the War on Terror continues. When will the shock wear off?

A Salute to Malalai Joya – Afghanistan’s Tom Paine
Published: August 8, 2008
Malalai Joya, a brave lady and banned legislator from Afghanistan, fights for justice, human rights, and democracy. She battles both the Warlords in power, the Taliban… and the American Government, which is probably why you have never heard of her.

SPOOF: New Element Discovered in America!
Published: December 5, 2008
The heaviest element ever was discovered yesterday by Franklin Delano Mussolini Laboratories of Washington, DC. Read all about it!

Words of Advice for the next Secretary of State
Published: December 3, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama recently announced his pick for SecState: Senator Hillary Clinton. Here is some advice for her, from a former Secretary of State by the name of John Quincy Adams.

Ron Paul Wastes Chance to Deliver KO Punch to FED
Published: November 20, 2008
Ron Paul failed to wipe the floor with Bernanke in the last Congressional Hearing. Here’s why. Shift tactics next time!

The Money Matrix – How the FED Works (PART 6/15)
Published: November 17, 2008
A step-by-step explanation of how the Federal Reserve, America’s Central Bank, can manipulate monetary policy.

Save Ron Paul’s Voice – A Money Matrix Addendum
Published: September 28, 2008
Learn how by reading. Article is intended as a poke-in-the-eye for members of the Ron Paul Revolution who complain about the bailouts and the financial, banking, and housing crises and do not realize that they may in fact be hypocrites.

The Drones Did It!
Published: November 8, 2008
“The catch-all phrase – The War on Terror. In all honesty, has no more meaning than if you want to wage a War on criminal Gangsterism. Terrorism is a Tactic. You can’t have a War against a Tactic. It’s deliberately vague and nondefinable in order to justify and permit perpetual War anywhere and under any circumstances.” – Dr. Ron Paul. Pakistan’s Chaos Continues.

SPOOF: Ron Paul Promises To Return When Country Needs Him Most
Published: October 25, 2008
As the McBama presidential “race” nears its thrilling conclusion, I follow a Ron Paul spoof from TheOnion.com with a serious question. Who will lead the Revolution next?

Police State Stomps on Iraq Veteran’s Face as McBama Sanctions Attack on Freedom of Speech: The Story of the Hempstead 15 (Part 1/3)
Published: October 25, 2008
What? Yet another event the media completely missed? After multiple attempts to engage McBama to answer their questions, the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) led a peaceful march on the last McCain-Obama Presidential Debate and were met with 30 mounted police and a horde of others in riot gear. The mounted police stamped on an Iraq war veteran’s face and attacked the crowd. Ron Paul supporter and veteran Adam Kokesh was arrested as well.

US Military Draft Creeps Closer – Ron Paul and I Defy Senators “Barackcuda” Obama and “Just-Bomb-It” McCain
Published: July 21, 2008
Gaze ye at the Face of Evil and know it for what it truly is. America, Have No Fear.

“In December of 2001, just a few months after 9/11, the American military learned that Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora, a dense mountain range in southeastern Afghanistan Instead of sending thousands of American soldiers to go into the mountain range to capture or kill Bin Laden, Bush did not send one single American soldier One of the warlords, in disbelief and frustration told the assembled press who had converged on Tora Bora: “If America wants to capture Osama, why aren’t they trying?” A top aide to [the warlord fighting al-Qaeda] said: “I don’t think the United States wants to capture Osama. We know where he is, we tell them and they do nothing. So they are not as serious as they say they are.”

From the day of the invasion (commenced by air strikes) in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, through December 7, when the Taliban regime collapsed, not one single American soldier died in combat. Why? Because the real fighting in the Afghan war was being done almost exclusively by the Northern Alliance. Our military was only there in an advisory and support capacity and our air force, from its safe position high in the clouds beyond the range of the very limited Taliban antiaircraft artillery, dropped bombs on the almost medieval country. If you want to call this “fighting” a war, then you have a different view than I do of what this word means…

A man is seated with his wife at a restaurant table. An armed killer enters the restaurant, shoots and kills the wife, then flees. The man, who everyone would automatically assume would pursue the killer since it was his wife who was killed, and since, it turns out, he was fully armed to do so, decides not to. He tells a stranger at a nearby table that he would appreciate it if he would pursue the killer, which the third party does. That’s exactly what Bush did in the Afghanistan war. Three thousand Americans were murdered, Bush vowed to go after the perpetrators, but instead asked the Northern Alliance, which never lost one of its members during 9/11, to in effect “get even” with the 9/11 killers for us. Shocking? Unbelievable? Yes, but 100 percent true. And through all of this, Bush’s approval rating remained extremely high (84%…) and we learned how very brave and ballsy Bush was.

With respect to Bush not wanting to use one American soldier to fight the Afghan war, it wasn’t until March 4^th, 2002, five months after the war commenced, that American soldiers started fighting in a normal, military way. This, from the March 5, 2002, edition of the New York Times: “In some of the fiercest fighting of the five-month war in Afghanistan, American ground forces took the lead in a large-scale combat operation for the first time

Bottom line: Although 3,000 American were murdered by Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda on 9/11, and we knew the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda and although Bush was receiving towering praise in America from Republicans as well as Democrats for his supposedly tough stance against terrorism and his vow to bring back Bin Laden “dead or alive” and to “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbored them” Bush’s original intent was to not send one American soldier to go after Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, all of whom were responsible for 9/11. But Bush was very, very eager, to the point of lying to the American public to get his way, to put over 150,000 American soldiers in harm’s way to go after Saddam Hussein, who he knew had nothing to do with 9/11.”

Bottom line: Although 3,000 American were murdered by Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda on 9/11, and we knew the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda and although Bush was receiving towering praise in America from Republicans as well as Democrats for his supposedly tough stance against terrorism and his vow to bring back Bin Laden “dead or alive” and to “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbored them” Bush’s original intent was to not send one American soldier to go after Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, all of whom were responsible for 9/11. But Bush was very, very eager, to the point of lying to the American public to get his way, to put over 150,000 American soldiers in harm’s way to go after Saddam Hussein, who he knew had nothing to do with 9/11.”

Quote of the Day: “Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.” Source: “Minority Report” (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 [1956]), p. 222

Subject: A state of permanent preparedness for impeachment

It’s Election Day. What should we say about it? We’re tempted to declare it a day of mourning, but instead, we’re going to argue that today is the day to adopt a state of permanent preparedness for impeachment.

As of yet, neither a Democrat nor a Republican has been elected President. That outcome will be revealed later today. But before that happens, we should commit ourselves to closely monitor the actions of the new President, and to be ready to call for his impeachment, should that become warranted.

We should be prepared to do this regardless of partisan loyalties.

What warrants impeachment? Different people will have different standards. We plan to maintain a running “bill of impeachment,” listing broken laws, Constitutional violations, and abuses of power. It will be up to you to agree or disagree with the items we choose to list, and to decide whether or not any one item or group of items justifies impeachment.

It’s possible, given your level of sensitivity, that the new President could do something on his first day that would immediately warrant impeachment in your eyes, or that he will never do enough bad things to justify such an action.

The call will be yours.

Some people reasonably object that impeachment is too vulnerable to partisan ax grinding. There are also many things for which a president could be impeached of which the impeachers themselves will be guilty. It is precisely these concerns that prevented us from advocating the impeachment of President Bush. But . . .

We have come to believe, after long consideration, that this was a mistake on our part. President Bush should have been impeached. In our view, he richly deserved it, as have many previous presidents, both Democrat and Republican.

The Founders provided impeachment as one of many checks on government power. In doing so they were painfully aware of the dangers of faction, or what we call partisanship. They must also have known that no president would ever be impeached by a saintly Congress. But they provided for the impeachment power anyway. We think we know why . . .

Unchecked government power is so toxic that it must be limited by every means available. Impeachment is one tool for doing so, even when it is tainted by partisanship and hypocrisy.

Which is better, to allow a president to run wild, or to check his criminality through impeachment, even if the impeachers are hypocrites with partisan motives? We would choose the latter outcome.

But there is one other factor to consider. The mere threat of impeachment could itself regulate presidential actions, long before formal impeachment proceedings became necessary. This is especially true if the President and Congress begin hearing a growing cry for impeachment from a large number of citizens.

Calling for impeachment, when each of us feels it is justified, could serve as a powerful warning to both the President and Congress.

As of today, there is no “bill of indictment” for an impeachment proceeding. No such list can even be compiled for the new president until after January 20, 2009. But what we can do today is warn Congress that we intend to be vigilant this time. Toward that end . . .

We’ve created a permanent impeachment campaign, where we will list, if necessary, any potentially impeachable offenses by the incoming president. In the meantime, the message-to-Congress for this campaign reads as follows . . .

“I’m serving notice that I’ll be watching the actions of the incoming president very closely. Should he break laws, violate the Constitution, or abuse his power, I’ll be urging you, early and often, to start impeachment proceedings.”

If you like the idea of maintaining a “permanent state of impeachment preparedness” then use our Educate the Powerful System to send this message to Congress.

If you feel that President Bush should have been impeached, then you could, if you wish, use your personal comments to state this opinion, and any supporting justifications you care to mention.

This is the most appropriate action we can suggest on Election Day.

Thank you for being a member of the growing Downsize DC army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation