A gentle reminder to ALL U.S. Senators and Representatives:

[rateyes]

You made a solemn promise. This is that promise:

"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."

1. You cannot support and defend the Constitution and at the same time allow the executive branch to continue to deny us our civil rights guaranteed by that same Constitution.

2. You cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States which says, among other things, that all treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land," and then look the other way when the POTUS breaks the provisions of the UN Charter to get us into an illegal war, along with the provisions of the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Such crimes are crimes against the Constitution, and therefore are "high crimes." It is your DUTY to impeach and remove from office the entire Bush administration.

3. You said that you take the obligation to protect the Constitution "freely, without ANY mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" If, indeed, this is true, why is impeachment "off the table?"

4. You said that you will WELL and FAITHFULLY execute the duties of your respective offices. It is your DUTY to impeach and remove from office those in this administration who have clearly committed high crimes. How WELL and FAITHFULLY are your executing THAT duty of your office?

Here is a measuring stick for you to use: The Illegal War in Iraq. Are you assenting to it by continuing to fund it? Can you really look in the eyes of the families of those who have lost their lives or have been wounded and TRUTHFULLY tell them that their sacrifice is worth it, and we must give it a "little more time?" Do you REALLY believe that? Can you justify keeping our combat troops in Iraq for ONE MORE HOUR, as if doing so will make the situation any BETTER? Can you? And KNOWING that the only way to END this war is to quit funding it, and that the ONLY way to ensure the restoration of our civil rights is to impeach Cheney, Bush, and Gonzales...what are you doing on those fronts?

Just asking.

[NanceGreggs]

1. WOW!!!

Excellent piece of writing.

:kick: and REC'D!

[rateyes]

2. Coming from you Nance...

that means a lot. Thanks.

[NanceGreggs]

5. This IS an incredibly well-written piece ...

You've covered all the bases, and done so with eloquence and precision!

(Only wish I had more than ONE rec to give ...)

[rateyes]

6. I am humbled. You are one of the best writers I know. nt

[That Is Quite Enough]

3. Incredible piece!

That was powerful, and something every Congress Critter should have to read! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[rateyes]

4. Thanks. And, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Gregorian]

7. I want one reason for NOT impeaching.

I certainly cannot find one.

[rateyes]

9. Me, too. And, "politics" doesn't cut it for me. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

12. oh jeez! now you're gonna have 18 people telling you "we don't have the votes"..

Incoming!!!! Duck and cover!

[rateyes]

17. But, we do have the votes....

we just won't use them.

[Gregorian]

42. What is the relationship between impeachment and votes?

I think that needs answering. Are they even related?

That's like saying Lance Armstrong was better than anyone in the Tour, so why even enter the race.

I think it's an unrelated issue. And a dynamic one. It could and will change.

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. I don't know the answer to that myself... maybe it's just an excuse for them

to do nothing? Impeachment: Build the case and the votes will come. Unless every one of these senators want to state on national TV that they support a criminal regime over the citizens they were elected to represent, they'll vote for impeachment.

[Nite Owl]

50. Exactly

build the case and the votes will come! It's a lame excuse, we are being talked down to, the reason is purely political they don't want to risk losing donors and campaign time.

[frogcycle]

64. problem is

This is logical: "Unless every one of these senators want to state on national TV that they support a criminal regime over the citizens they were elected to represent."

We are not dealing with logic. Enough of the senators are part of the criminal regime that the system is broken. They won't say they "support" it; they will just say they are "not convinced." The fox is in the henhouse.

Unless and until very large numbers of people from the home states of the holdout senators take to the streets they will just play dumb. They will say they are "not convinced" (remember OJ?). If they have to deal with angry mobs every time they come/go from their house, their office; if there are people being dragged out of the senate gallery daily for shouting them down; if, unfortunately, there are confrontations with police with people getting their heads busted... THEN maybe the iceberg will begin to move.

Nothing will change from the top. The civil rights movement, the women's movement, the antiwar movement in VN, the labor movement - all of these societal changes required grassroots movements, with visible people marching and demonstrating, striking and disrupting.

[SeattleGirl]

8. Excellent piece!

Mind if I send it on to my Senators and Congress Critter?

[rateyes]

10. Go right ahead....

I'm sending it to my DINO Representative, Jim Marshall. And, my two Repuke Senators, Suxby Chambliss and Johnny Isuxson.

[SoonerPride]

13. I will send this letter to all my reps as well.

Of course, I live in Oklahoma (which DU voted as having the worst two Senators) so they'll just laugh and make a paper airplane out of it!

:(

However, I will add this:

You must vote to remove Bush and Cheney from office or you can expect the voters of this state to remove you from office for failing to defend the Constitution.

[rateyes]

15. I didn't get to vote in that poll...I disagree...MY Senators

are the worst. Suxby Chambliss, and Johnny Isuxson. Of course, Inhofe and Coburn do give them a run for their money.

[brer cat]

34. Hey follow Georgian,

Suxby and Isuxson! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Great post! They will also get a copy compliments of me.

:thumbsup:

[rateyes]

35. I can't stand those two...BTW, did you attend

Piedmont? Isn't that in Hiawasee? I've got a good friend who teaches there...one of the brightest women I know.

[Harry Monroe]

72. Thanks

I just sent it to my redneck Senators (Lott and Cochran) and Representative (Pickering 3rd district) here in Mississippi. All Republicans of course. They'll probably wad it up and throw it in the trash, but at least I tried.

[libnnc]

11. Hell yes

That's it. It's not about the DNC or the GOP. It's about the Constitution. That is our blueprint. You ignore or fuck with that blueprint now, there will be hell to pay later.

[rateyes]

14. I hope you're right about "hell to pay" for

fucking with the Constitution. I dearly hope you're right! :hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. Proudly kicking and recommending this post... EXCELLENT!!!

May I repost it, with credit given to you of course, on one of my sites? I'd like to send a copy to my senators and reps too...

[rateyes]

18. Go right ahead, and you don't have to give credit...

especially if you send it to your Congresscritters.

[rateyes]

19. But do PM me a link to the place you post it...

I would love to see the site.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Thank you...

here's the link: http://www.congressunderfire.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=7&mesg_id=7&page=

Check it out. It's not much right now, just something I'm working on.

[rateyes]

29. Cool. Great site. I'll keep visiting on occasion.

Thanks. :hi:

[porphyrian]

20. Yeah, I'll kick that. - n/t

[rateyes]

21. Thanks. nt

[porphyrian]

103. No problem. I'll do it again. - n/t

[Hatchling]

22. Stunning!

I have to kick. I will be printing this out and mailing to my congress critters.

I tried to recommend but I don't have enough posts yet. Too many years being a read only member of DU and not enough years of opening my mouth here. That has to change.

[rateyes]

26. Well, welcome to POSTING on DU!

:hi:

[me b zola]

23. Very well done

:applause:

[rateyes]

28. My appreciation.

:hi:

[MissWaverly]

24. Yes, Yes, Yes

They are supposed to consider the common good, not what's best for Geoege Herbert Bush, Barbara Bush, George W. Bush, Karl Rove,
Richard Cheney or Alberto Gonzales. They are supposed to be concerned about those who are going on their 5th deployment since 2001, who can't get out of service in a country with no draft. They are supposed to care about our treaties that have been trampled. They are supposed to care about the constitution, how can they sit there knowing that there are over 300 detainees at Gitmo, many of whom are not guilty of anything who have been held by US for 5 years. They are supposed to care about what we are doing in Iraq and what is doing in our name in the war we went into by mistake.

[rateyes]

27. Yes, that's what they are SUPPOSED to be doing! nt

[Joanne98]

30. Amen to that! K&R!

[rateyes]

31. Can I get a witness? :D nt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Great post. K&R

[rateyes]

33. Thanks. nt

:hi:

[Raster]

36. K&R! Most Excellent!

Reality Check: Clinton was impeached for lying about a consensual sex act between two legal adults. And impeachment of bush* and cheney* is "off the table"?

There are two types of Representatives not in favor of impeachment: cowards and collaborators. Or perhaps both.

Wake up America!:kick:

[rateyes]

38. My prayer is that it is

cowardice, and that is meant for ALL those who won't put impeachment on the table. If it's collaboration, then there is no hope.

[Raster]

47. I am afraid, my friend, that it may be a mixture of both. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend

ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS not scared to death about the future of our country and willing to do anything to preserve democracy. I have come to the highly unpleasant realization that either they are afraid to take a stand, or they have gone to the dark side.

How fitting I am reading the last Harry Potter book and the definitive theme is good against evil.

[bonito]

49. The hope is alive and well

It's within us, the only place possible :)

[Swamp Rat]

37. k&r

[rateyes]

39. Great bumper sticker! nt

[rateyes]

40. I've got to sign off for a while...but, thanks everybody...

I'll post any replies I get from Rep. Marshall, and Senators Suxby Chambliss and Johnny Isuxson.

[bonito]

41. Very well said, a clearly excellent piece

:thumbsup: Another great viewpoint I just finished reading here http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174823/ira_chernus_democratic_doublespeak_on_iraq

I think you will find enlightening as well.

[defendandprotect]

44. Uplifting reminder of where we should be . . . and why doesn't Congress know this???

Thank you for your sane thinking --

nice break from what's going on --

[WillyT]

45. Bravo rateyes, BRAVO !!! - K & R !!!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:


:yourock:

ABSOLUTELY!!!

[Raejeanowl]

46. Very Good

The only other question it left me wanting to add was:


And if under the stated circumstances you refuse to uphold the Constitution and fulfill your sworn obligation to represent the U.S. citizens of your District, are you therefore assenting to your recall/removal from office by same?

[mconvente]

48. Not to be a downer here, but...

When you have an amazing progressive Senator in Russ Feingold not advocating for impeachment, I don't know what you can do... He's right to point out that impeachment proceedings begin in the House and not the Senate, and that if impeachment occurs then he would be an impartial judge in that decision as a Senator. But still - this guy was touted as THE Presidential candidate of the netroots last year and now he isn't even doing anything to start impeachment. Says it will take too much time and political capital away from the Democrats. Says we need to work on more oversight and stuff. When I read his posts on DKos a week ago, that was the first time I really became depressed and super disillusioned about the true dictator we have as our "president". When a man whom we adore doesn't want to impeach *Bush, we are lost...

Thank God for Mr. Conyers

[Nite Owl]

51. You expressed what we are

feeling.

What are the dems going to do in Sept if they do get their rather weak bill to bring the troops home by next spring passed and it is again vetoed? Are they going to give him the money again? Then all the late nights now are just for show.

I will send this to my rep but she insists that she will never vote for cutting off funding. She feels that * will just leave the troops there without supplies, that he is capable of doing that. She is adamant about that unfortunately. We worked very hard to get her into office but soon as she was there she joined the Blue Dogs.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. Ask her how much of the funding goes to troops and how much to mercenaries?

Call her staff and ask for the figures.

And find her a primary challenger.

[OnyxCollie]

52. Thank you.

I just sent this off to my two Senators, Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich. Voinovich is already feeling the heat of the upcoming election. I want it to be hotter.:evilgrin:

[checks-n-balances]

54. Wonderful message! I would just add that they can't lose w/this one

even if they don't have the votes, they'll have the respect and admiration from all those whose respect they would want. They'll also have the gratitude of the TRUE patriots, including TRUE republicans (and there are still some of them left out there in the general public).

Heck, the WHOLE WORLD WILL BE GRATEFUL, since they can't really step in from the outside to help us. If they don't do it, the world may conclude that we get what we deserve and they will never help us, even when we desperately need it.

They're WAY off base if they think it will hurt them politically; when they think that way, they're only mimicing today's republican party in power, who ONLY think of the political consequences.

[Norrin Radd]

55. k+r

[Senator]

56. Impeachment Is The ONLY Way To "End The War" As Well

We've seen the cutting the funding farce before.

Besides, impeachment is like walking and fund-cutting is like chewing gum.

You see the problem.

Only Impeachment ... is the exit to this DemocRat's Maze.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

-----

[ClayZ]

57. K and R Bravo!

[Mnemosyne]

58. I've been a wee bit harsher with my reps.

I've told them that if they do not impeach, as is their sworn Constitutional duty, they will be considered accessories in the crimes of this administration and can join them at the Hague.

Too rough, ya' think?

[Totally Committed]

59. This is one of those all-too-rare posts that I wish I could recommend about 1000 times.

Very moving, and very well-written.

I just wish ANY of our elected cared enough about us and doing their jobs enough to actually take what is said here to heart. It doesn't seem they care a fig about us and what we want from them. But, your post is a welcome ray of light on this Monday morning, nonetheless.

Thank you for writing such a great piece!

TC

[stevedeshazer]

60. Good job, my friend

[rateyes]

66. Thanks, Steve. I still remember your 4th of July post

from a couple of years ago as one of the best I've seen. :hi:

[sandyj999]

61. Bravo! n/t

[JamesA1102]

62. I wish

I lived in the simple black and white world that you seem to live in.

[rateyes]

68. My world isn't black and white. It's full of color and all shades

of gray. But, there is nothing "gray" about upholding the oath of office that these Senators and Representatives of all parties took, and unless they all are held to account, then the system fails, and we lose our freedoms.

[drm604]

63. We should all send this to our Senators and Representatives.

Any objection if we copy this and send it?

[rateyes]

70. None at all. Go ahead, and sign your own name to it. nt

[disndat]

78. Maybe copy this

and make enough copies to hand out to members of congress and be sure they are put into their hands. They ALL need to read this.

[RoccoR5955]

65. Here Here!

What about impeaching the person responsible for this illegal war. This will do well to end the constitutional crisis at hand. One man cannot take absolute power as has this president. Only through impeachment, trial and imprisonment, can we end the crisis at hand.

[Summer93]

67. Confusing - who is the enemy?

Great article!

No. 3 hit the nail on the head:

3. You said that you take the obligation to protect the Constitution "freely, without ANY mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" If, indeed, this is true, why is impeachment "off the table?"

So if Pelosi chose to take impeachment "off the table" she took the constitution and rewrote it to suit her goals while in office. She chose first to support the lawless *ushco admin even at the cost of her elected position.

Where in the constitution does it say that each/any of the
Senators/Representatives can choose a part of the constitution to void for their own purposes. Are they all above the law?

Our country which used to be a country of laws not men has turned into that resembling the country of those we are fighting.

[rateyes]

69. I agree. And, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Land Shark]

71. And citizens have a DUTY to support this, if that's their opinion

sitting back and expecting someone else in Congress to "do their duty" is probably self-defeating because their duty is easily defined as one of impeachment, but only if the public will supports the same....

[rateyes]

73. Who is "sitting back"? I'm not "sitting back," that's for damned

sure. And, I'm one member of the public who will support it, and the polls tell us that the American people support it. But, here's the point: THEY TOOK AN OATH, to which they are bound by law, and if they KNOW that high crimes have been committed, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU OR I THINK, it is their solemn duty to impeach and remove from office the criminal who committed the high crimes.

IMO, the question "what does this do to the party?" is NOT the right one to be asking. The question is: "Did the POTUS, VP, SecDef commit high crimes?" If the answer is "Yes," then the Representatives, if they are true to their oath, have no choice but to impeach, and let the Senate give them a fair trial.

[socretes73]

74. BINGO

well thought out!

This should go to EVERY Rep in the Land!

[KurtNYC]

75. Good stuff -- the Constitution says "shall"

It says "shall be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors"

Not "may be impeached" but SHALL. Your post is right on target.

[GOTV]

79. No where in the constitution does the phrase you quote exist n/t

[DianaForRussFeingold]

86. Thanks for bringing that up! I did a Google! According to C-Span's Congressional Scholar

The Constitution says a President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but it doesn't define the term. Who decides what that means? Columbus, Ohio - 5/3/00

The Congress decides the definition: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."

Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust." more... http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm
Articles of impeachment, resignation, and convictions concerning Nixon
Interesting read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Articles_of_impeachment.2C_resignation.2C_and_convictions Published on Friday, April 2, 2004 by NOW with Bill Moyers
Ex-Nixon Aide John Dean Tells Bill Moyers that Bush Should Be Impeached Partial Transcript
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-16.htm Video- http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/dean.html# These 2 videos are the best and clearest explanations I've heard and from someone who's been there! John Dean - Bush administration worse than Watergate -- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f70B-gfKuxs

[GOTV]

92. Thanks for the data, but the common mistatement of the previous poster....

... completely distorts the meaning of the actual sentence the poster referred to and that's what I was getting at. The previous poster implied that that phrase was essentially "shall impeach", with the emphasis on "shall" as if the house was compelled to impeach.

In fact the shall connects to "shall be removed" only compelling that a impeached and convicted president cannot serve further.

Your data about the ambiguity of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" serves to reduce the clear-cut image of the impeachment option even further.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

100. My mistake, I should have replied to the original op.which I certainly K&R

:yoiks: Sorry to take so long to reply. I read your post and the previous one and I just had to try do something even though I have a Migraine,this discussion is more important. I Agree, C-SPAN especially, was ambiguous too and left me kinda confused, but I do recommend the videos. I believe this is not a partisan issue . They all took the oath like the op said, to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and 'domestic'! Plus I have the DU name I picked, so I am trying to give Feingold the benefit of the doubt and it's not at all easy! Also,I am sure there are some very good investigative reporters and whistle-blowers out there, just dying to get out there in the MSM and do their job! :sarcasm: I do have to believe that justice will prevail! ;-)

[KurtNYC]

93. Article 2, Section 4

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

edit to add: I concede to the misquote.

[Chichiri]

76. Send this to all of them.

Every single blessed Senator and Representative out there. Email it AND fax it AND snail-mail it AND send it through a hand-delivered courier AND through carrier pigeon AND morse code in the senate hallways AND smoke signals out on the lawn until they READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS MESSAGE!!

[rateyes]

77. I wish I could afford to buy a full page, or even half-page ad

in the Washington Post, or USA today. Thanks.

[GOTV]

80. I doubt this would impress many of them....

1) Their powers have limits. The fact that they haven't stopped Bush yet does not mean they've "allowed" the abuses anymore than you've allowed the abuses.

2) They are not looking the other way.

3) Because impeachment has no effect on Bush's ability to abuse the constitution unless it leads to conviction and there's no chance of that yet.

4) It is only your opinion, based on the erroneous notion that impeachment will accomplish something, that impeachment is part of their duty. Not everyone, including them, agree. Yet you state it like it is explicit. It is their duty to defend the constitution but it is their choice as to how.

[rateyes]

81. It is NOT my OPINION that the

Constitution REQUIRES US Representatives protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution REQUIRES that the POTUS be removed from office upon impeachment, and conviction for bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

It IS my OPINION that the framers of the Constitution EXPECTED members of the House of Representatives, who hold the sole power of impeachment, when confronted with a POTUS who has OBVIOUSLY committed high crimes, to impeach that president, and for the Senate to give that president a fair trial, and to vote to remove him if they believe he is guilty. The House shouldn't be concerned about "if they have the votes." They should only be concerned with whether the evidence exists.

If a member of Congress believes, after hearing the evidence, that a POTUS or any other offical has committed a high crime, a REASONABLE, STRONG ARGUMENT can be made that such belief REQUIRES, by virtue of the oath, to impeach. To believe that the POTUS has committed a crime against the constitution, and still allow him to hold office by refusing to impeach, is a violation of that oath, as well as an act of political cowardice.

[GOTV]

82. It is YOUR opinion that impeachment is their DUTY

"The Constitution REQUIRES that the POTUS be removed from office upon impeachment, and conviction for bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Which only means that if impeached and convicted he cannot continue to serve. It doesn't say that if he commits x, y, or z he must be impeached and convicted.

The need for impeachment and conviction is entirely up to the whim of the congress and senate. There is no legally defined circumstances that mandates impeachment, and so, a representative cannot be considered in violation of their oath based soley on the fact that they have not pushed for impeachment.

"It IS my OPINION that the framers of the Constitution EXPECTED members of the House of Representatives, who hold the sole power of impeachment, when confronted with a POTUS who has OBVIOUSLY committed high crimes, to impeach that president."

I almost agree with you here, which only means my opinion is close to yours. I think the framers expect us to move egregiously bad presidents. However, I think all of the founders would understand that there could arise situations whereby the Senate was as corrupt as the president and therefore would prevent removal and make impeachment fruitless.

"If a member of Congress believes, after hearing the evidence, that a POTUS or any other offical has committed a high crime, a REASONABLE, STRONG ARGUMENT can be made that such belief REQUIRES, by virtue of the oath, to impeach."

Only if that representative further believes that impeachment would be effective. No one is ever morally compelled to take ineffective action.

"To believe that the POTUS has committed a crime against the constitution,"

Which some believe (you and I) and some do not.

" and still allow him to hold office by refusing to impeach"

As I said they may not be impeaching because impeachment will not remove him from office, not because they condone his actions.

If I see a murder occurring, and I'm holding an empty gun, the fact that I did not fire the gun does not mean I condoned the murder. Maybe I condoned the murder, or maybe I just believed the gun gave me no power to stop the murder. You can't tell just from the fact that I didn't point the gun and pull the trigger.

"is a violation of that oath, as well as an act of political cowardice."

only if they believe impeachment was the best way to protect the constitution.

[rateyes]

90. The House of Representatives, in the impeachment role...

serves as the grand jury. Their job is to decide if a case can be made. It's the senate's job to try the case and serve as jurors. For the House of Representatives to even consult with the Senate on what they might or might not do is inappropriate.

We disagree. That's fine. I, however, will continue to push the Congress to do what I believe to be their DUTY, and impeach. If the Senate wants to acquit. Fine. That's when we the people hold the Senate accountable with our votes.

[BlueEyedSon]

83. HOLY SH!T.... k&r

[namvet73]

84. Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! -n/t-

[riona]

85. Amen!

We the People are tired of our Constitution being used as Washington's floor mat.

[Sherman A1]

87. Superb!!!

there is nothing more to say.

[MrMickeysMom]

88. Indeed... in fact, may I USE your words on the phone.. they grab the whole package!

I've been on the phone today, and have already spoken to Speaker Pelosi's comment line. This is what I would have loved to have said today and would like to tomorrow.

You have done the best job- :applause:

[rateyes]

89. Go right ahead. nt

[BuyingThyme]

91. :applause:

:applause:

[cutlassmama]

94. K&R

[thedeej]

95. Isn't it better

to win before we leave this war?

[rateyes]

101. Define "win." nt

[rateyes]

102. Didn't think you'd answer the question. nt

[april]

96. we need to send this to Nancy P and everyone in our states..

[midnight]

97. Thank you for this gentle reminder. As I read this I was wondering

is this the same oath that the police and the military take?

[Greylyn58]

98. K & R

This is truly well done!!!

The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
~Sir Winston Churchill

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

99. IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH ALREADY

It hasn't been done soon enough for me... But if it is done today I'll be feeling lots better.

Thank you for this post, ADW