Monday, July 10, 2006

Texas Congressman Ron Paul Calls For Bush's Impeachment

Seems like I'm not the only one who believes we should consider impeaching George W. Bush. In an interview published on Alex Jones' Prison Planet website, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas House District 14 (pictured at left, photo courtesy of Prison Planet) also believes it time to consider impeachment, although he wants it done on constitutional terms rather than political terms.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul says President Bush has presided over a doctrine of violating the Constitution at every turn and that he should be impeached - but that likely Democratic efforts to do so will be in the interests of playing politics and not the health of the nation.

During an interview with Alex Jones on the GCN Radio network, Paul outlined the likely scenario as to how impeachment proceedings would unfold. "I'd be surprised if they win both - I think they're going to win one body and if they win the House right now they do not say they would have an impeachment but I think the way that place operates I think they probably will make every effort," said Paul. "If they happened to have a ten or fifteen vote margin that would be a political thing - it would be payback time."

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land. I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

Opining that the US had entered a period of "soft fascism," Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles. "Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law." said Paul. "When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing."

Asked what the ultimate agenda was behind the American Union and the push on behalf of the Bush administration to homogenize the US with Mexico and Canada, Paul was clear in his response. "I think the goal is one world government - we have not only the U.N. - we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subsidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric governments, highways coming in," Paul replied. "I just hope and pray that we can wake up enough people," said Paul, noting that Texans in his own backyard were more aware of Bush selling out the country for an American Union than anyone in Washington.

Prison members can hear this entire interview by clicking here. Please consider subscribing to Prison by clicking here.

Analysis: The bar for impeachment has been set commendably high - it requires a President be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The bar was also set high so that impeachment would be a last resort rather than a first resort. This promotes stability and subsequent growth. In contrast, Latin America has lagged behind North America in growth and prosperity because they previously changed governments down there as often as I change my shorts. As Latin American governments have become more stable, their economies have become more prosperous.

Only three American Presidents have been subject to impeachment. Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House primarily because he wanted justice for a defeated Confederacy; his Senate conviction failed by one vote. Richard Nixon resigned before the full House could even take an impeachment vote. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but his Senate conviction failed by a tangible margin, possibly because they obsessed with Clinton's adultery and subsequent cover-up rather than the higher crimes and misdemeanors of incinerating 80 Americans at Waco, allowing the Chicoms to steal our nuclear secrets, signing a bogus one-sided agreement with the North Korean terrorist regime in 1994, and waging an unprovoked 78-day carpet-bombing campaign against Serbia, which threatened to fracture our evolving relationship with a newly-liberated Russia.

So do George W. Bush's actions meet the test? Congressman Paul appears quite put out with this evolving North American Union, being secretly assembled behind the scenes. If Bush is prepared to allow the American government to become subordinate to a North American Union regional government without a popular vote of the people, this by itself would be a "high crime". However, there are other actions which individually may not be "high crimes and misdemeanors", but evaluated cumulatively, could reveal an overall pattern in that direction. These actions include:

1). Launching an aggressive war in Iraq under spurious premises. While I do not believe that Bush deliberately lied, I believe he got flawed information, exercised bad judgement, and failed to adequately and coherently explain all the objectives to the American people. Remember the infamous "Mission Accomplished" soundbite aboard the aircraft carrier? Over half our combat deaths in Iraq have occurred SINCE the "mission" was "accomplished". Perhaps the war may ultimately prove beneficial but at this point I see no such potential. One of our Alaskan Congressional candidates has been impacted by this war. The son of Democratic U.S. House candidate Diane Benson lost his legs on his third deployment to Iraq.

2). Approving gratuitous tax cuts for the rich and the elimination of the inheritance tax. Tax reform was necessary, but this went too far, was too discriminatory, benefited people who didn't need to be benefited, and exacerbated our annual deficits and further compounded our national debt. Smaller tax cuts and eliminating inheritance taxes only on inherited property would have been sufficient.

3). Approved CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), further eroding America's economic sovereignty. CAFTA is merely a junior version of NAFTA, and all NAFTA really did was trade jobs for illegal Mexicans. While NAFTA was initially advertised as an antidote to illegal immigration, it actually spurred mass immigration to historic highs. Adding insult to injury, both NAFTA and CAFTA have also perpetuated and intensified our chronic trade deficits.

4). The endless cascade of intrusive, invasive, and oppressive legislation like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the USA Patriot Act. While sound in concept, these acts have been used as hammers to beat down dissension. NCLB has transformed public schools into academic sweatshops where testing takes precedence over learning, and credentials trump character. And in the name of the USA Patriot Act, we've seen law-abiding gun dealers endure SWAT raids and white nationalists being indicted on phony "hate crimes" charges. People with unpopular politics on both sides of the proverbial aisle are subject to instant economic disenfranchisement at any time. While Bush cannot be held responsible for these abuses, he can be held responsible for creating a climate permitting these abuses, much as Adolf Hitler was held responsible for creating a climate permitting the abuse of power by subordinates like Heinrich Himmler, Martin Bormann, and Herman Goehring to take place. Back then, it was called the "Fuehrerprinzip" or leadership priniciple, and it still applies today, only our Himmlers, Bormanns and Goehrings are named Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney. Perhaps this comparison may be extreme, but we cannot seem to get the Administration's attention any other way.

5). The stubborn, obstinate refusal of President Bush to acknowledge and respect the clearly-expressed desire of the American people to restrict immigration. Immigration reform does NOT mean amnesty, does NOT mean guest workers, and does NOT mean more anchor babies. It means a REDUCTION in the number of immigrants allowed to move here, as well as the REMOVAL of illegals through ATTRITION. What is it about this concept that is so hard for this stubborn, mule-headed Texican to understand? The elite whine about how "dependent" we are on illegals. The reality is they become accustomed to a compliant labor force that will accept slave wages and OSHA violations because, in strictly relative terms, it is so much better for them than their previous situation. However, what's "so much better" for them is "so much worse" for American workers. The service sector once provided a satisfactory transitional living for Americans who were laid off more prestigious and lucrative jobs and who needed affordable work while they regrouped and learned new skills. Thanks to the huge volume of immigrants undercutting wages by creating an artifical labor surplus, this option is increasingly out of the reach of such workers now. And Bush, having never really worked for a living and having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, has no concept of what working for a living is all about. Or it could be that Bush thinks we're just kidding about immigration.

It's time to show Bush we're not kidding. And the best way is to launch a formal impeachment inquiry in Congress. The mere threat of impeachment may be enough to cause President Bush to reconsider his actions. Perhaps this will convey the understanding as to why his ratings are in the 30s. If the mere threat of impeachment causes Bush to change his stance on economics, trade, and immigration, then we may not need to follow through with an actual impeachment. But we cannot continue to fight these immigration enthusiasts with one hand tied behind our back. We need to stand up to them the same way the New Jersey State Legislature is courageously standing up to New Jersey's Governor Jon Corzine's economic blackmail of that state. We need to fight fire with fire.

Tags: , , , ,


  1. Playing the left today, Carl?

  2. Just like being a major league shortstop. Sometimes you go to the right to make the play, other times you have to go to the left.

    Besides, there are other Republicans who oppose aggressive war and huge deficits.

  3. Comparing it to baseball seems to be a bad analogy considering the amount of money spent to see professional games.
    It costs a pretty penny to watch some guy dance back and forth to catch a ball.

    And which Republicans would you be talking about? If they are anything like Alaska Right to Life endorsing you for office it's rather a funny thought. I wonder if they realized who they were endorsing? If they did they need to remove the right to life part.