[IFP does not endorse any federal candidate only encourages accountability of all politicans]
afterdowningstreet.org
by David Swanson
26 Congressional Candidates, Including Dems, Greens, Libertarians, Independents, Favor Impeachment Now to Prevent Attack on Iran
CANDIDATES FOR IMPEACHMENT TO PREVENT AN ATTACK ON IRAN
We the undersigned candidates for Congress believe that there are strong signs that the US government will bomb Iranian nuclear facilities before the end of April. While we appreciate Rep. John Conyers’ recent statement that an attack on Iran will lead him to open impeachment hearings, we believe that opening them BEFORE an attack is urgent, in order to prevent WW III.
Impeachment is long overdue. We the undersigned are running for Congress on an impeachment platform, because invading another country (Iraq) on the basis of lying to Congress is impeachable, along with many other actions of Bush and Cheney. We believe they have ignored and overiden the Constitution many times over, as well as violating international treaties that are the supreme law of the land.
As candidates, we have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. All incumbents have taken the same oath, yet they are keeping impeachment off the table. They are violating their oath of office.
We urge current members of Congress to start impeachment proceedings at once. We accuse those who will not do this of bad faith, and call them oath breakers. We pledge to make their lack of action on impeachment a central issue this election year.
Carol Wolman, MD – Green candidate for Congress, CA District 1
Robert Feuer- Democratic candidate for Congress, Massachusetts District 1
Kathy Cummings – Green candidate for Senate, Illinois
Laurie Dobson – Independent candidate for Senate, Maine
Samm Sampson – Democratic candidate for Congress, Florida District 10
Carol Brouillet – Green candidate for Congress, California District 14
Chris Lugo – Independent candidate for Senate, Tennessee
Eugene Ruyle – Peace and Freedom candidate for Congress, California District 10
Craig Hill – Democratic candidate for Congress, Vermont district 1
Harold Burbank – Green candidate for Congress, Connecticut District 5
Richard Duffee – Green candidate for Congress, Connecticut District 4
John M. Wages, Jr. – Green Candidate for Congress, Mississippi District 1
David J. Kalbfleisch – Green Party candidate for U.S. House, IL-10
Vic Roberts – Green Party Congressional Candidate, IL 19th District
Dan Reale – Libertarian candidate for Congress, Connecticut District 2
Cynthia Papermaster – Democratic candidate for Congress CA District 16
Steve Alesch ““ Green Candidate for Congress, Illinois District 13
Tom Davis ““ Green Candidate for Senator from Texas
Steve Wilkie – Green Party Candidate for Congress, 2nd District, Florida
John Russell-Democratic Candidate for Congress, 5th District, Florida
Iain Abernathy, Green Party candidate for the US House of Representatives, Illinois 8th district
G. Scott Deshefy, Green Party candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, 2nd CT congressional district
Andrea Miller, Democratic Candidate for Congress, Virginia District 4
Ted Brown, Libertarian candidate for U. S. Congress, 26th District, California
Rebekah Kennedy, Green Candidate for U.S. Senate from Arkansas
Mahdi Ibn Ziyad, Democratic candidate for Congress, New Jersey District 1
(Source)
Hi again, Mikael! Sorry for the long lapse in communication, but I’ve been terribly busy as of late. I see you folks are discussing the definition of “Neoconservatism.” That term was originally (mid ’70s?) used as a criticism against recreant Liberals who abandoned Liberalism and went to “the Dark Side,” more commonly known as “Conservatism”; hence the term, which refers to being ‘new’ conservatives.
In the USA (in New York particularly), some Liberal intellectuals could no longer ignore the violent Soviet suppression of the East German, Hungarian and Czechoslovak uprisings against Communist rule of those times – truly saw the brutality of Communism, and the destructiveness and inhumanity of Leftist ideology in general – which caused them to abandon “Liberalism” and found Neoconservatism.
Which goes to the core of the argument that Liberal polices are on par with Socialism, and perhaps even Communistic if taken to fruition. Sorry, but you just can’t get away from that thorn.
Nowadays, it encompasses the ideas that America should [from Wikipedia:] “export democracy,” “support a militant anticommunism, tolerate more social welfare spending than is sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, and sympathize with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that is less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles, even if that means unilateral action.”
Hope that helps! Have a good day.
-Mark
Here is your war, Neocons:
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=5270
The blood of this child is on your hands.
OK, I can live with it Michael….It is sad to see the innocent die, but then that is what happens when you have bad people with arms that choose to fight wearing civilian clothes, among civilians, or for that matter, as we now see, will use such civilians as unwilling or unknowing civilians. War is hell. But surrender to people who openly seek to kill you, whose very religion they claim to follow insists that all who are not believers are subject to death, and prefer the world to be like it was in the good old days of the 15 century is even worse. In past times we have done even more, we intentionally bombed civilian areas in WWII, but then war is hell isn’t it?
In like manner…. the blood of many of our service men are on your hands and the hands of your fellow travellers. for you and yours give comfort to an enemy, give them reason to think they can prevail. How can I say that? Because they have openly said so.
I’ve never worried about defining a Neo-Con, as the term doesn’t apply to me. I’ve been a conservative since I was in high school in the 1970s, and I don’t think the term was coined until after 2000, but I could be entirely wrong on that aspect of its origins.
As for my personal definition of conservatism, it centers around the value of the individual’s natural rights and the individual’s responsibilities in return. It is based on the ideas advanced by John Locke and to a lesser extent their elaboration by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (although I think Rousseau was off his nut with the “noble savage” archtype), essentially that of the Social Contract. I reject the collectivism that is the core of the various Socialist creeds for this reason; it is all too easy for a Socialist government to evolve into a single-party regime in which the rights of the individual are subsumed by the prerogatives of the state. I think that the redistribution of wealth through the agency of government is a bad idea, as it promotes an entitlement mentality that saps the ethic of personal responsibility.
Before you denounce me as a mere Republican elitist eager to defend my privileges, do bear in mind that I was raised on a farm in North Alabama. I have worked 24-hour days for far less than minimum wage in far less than enjoyable conditions. I can strip my sleeves and show my scars and hold my head up in the company of warriors for the working day. Before you dismiss me as a mere dupe of the Republican elite, ignorant, superstitious and clinging to my guns, do bear in mind that I came off that farm and worked my way through school to a Ph.D in history. I never took out a student loan or received a government grant in the process.
Feel free to sneer at me and to belittle my accomplishments.
Here is your war, Neocons:
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=5270
The blood of this child is on your hands.
What is your definition of Neo-Con margaret?
What is your definition of Neo-Con Mack Smith?
Replace “corporate profit for cronies” with “privileges for GOP party apparatchiks” and you have a pretty good definition of Republicanism.
Mikael wrote (in part):
“…who believes that domestic and global goals of control, domination and corporate profit for cronies can and should be accomplished by any means necessary. Diplomacy doesn’t exist, except down the barrel of a gun. Ethics and morals have no bearing on decision-making, nor does any consideration of “collateral damage” in the form of the death of American soldiers or innocent civilians in Iraq or anywhere else.”
Replace “corporate profit for cronies” with “privileges for party apparatchiks” and you have a pretty good definition of Socialism.
I like that definition of a NeoCon, Mikael! And I am proud to say that is exactly what I am!
To Hell with the U.N.
To Hell with the sissy-assed Eurotrash! Esp. the spineless French.
To Hell with Saddam Hussain. Wait! Check this one off the list!!!
To Hell with Welfare. Shut that big ripoff down! Paying people to sit on their asses? C’mon! Not to mention the crooks that are ripping it off. Let them eat cake!!!
To Hell with Al Qaeda! Kill everyone of those towel headed fudge packers.
To Hell with the whole worthless middle east! Nuke the whole damned place, including Israel. Let God sort them out!
God Bless Capitalism! Working hard and working smart and in doing so, getting rich made this the best country in the world! You didn’t Americans, en masse, beating down the walls of the Iron Curtain to get into the Soviet Union, did you? Where are all the illegal Mexicans headed? South to Hugo Chavez’s socialist utopia? Nope! North to the United States. Because unlike Europe, Asia, or Venezuela, you at least have a chance at becoming something better here, if you are willing to do what it takes.
You may find my beliefs to be vile. But I find what you stand for, Mikael, to be terrifying in how destructive to the security of this country it could be. I thank God, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, or whatever name you have for the all mighty creator of the universe, that the chances of you getting your way …. are non-existent.
God, Guns, and Guts make the USA the greatest country on Earth. I plan on keeping all 3 until the day I die!
—
margaret,
The definition of NeoCon has evolved over time, but at this point it seems to mean an extremist version of a conservative or right winger who believes that domestic and global goals of control, domination and corporate profit for cronies can and should be accomplished by any means necessary. Diplomacy doesn’t exist, except down the barrel of a gun. Ethics and morals have no bearing on decision-making, nor does any consideration of “collateral damage” in the form of the death of American soldiers or innocent civilians in Iraq or anywhere else.
In essence, a NeoCon is a global bully who thinks it is “my way or the highway” – all prioritizing corporate profit and domination of the global marketplace.
What is your definition?
What is your definition of NeoCon, Mikael?
Tough to figure out where you are really coming from Mr. Spargo. The comment section on this site is often infested with NeoCon trolls whose comments are so confusing I wind up having no idea what they are saying. I seem to have wrongfully assumed you were one of ‘them’.
Debating politics can, often times, become quite emotional. But, also the spice of life! I find it enjoyable. With that said, many of my close friends are NeoCons. I like to consider myself a pragmatist, not a dogmatist. Therefore, in my political debates with my friends I try to make every effort to keep my responses and reactions as un-emotional as possible. If I did not do that, I would not have these friends, of whom I share a great number of common interests with, for very long.
from: Impudent Child Mikael closing in on his 50th birthday.
Well … that still makes me a good bit older than you. May I suggest that you take that comment as a compliment. 😀
—
My friend next to me, fluent in Spanish (I am conversational) read your post, Chubby and said: “I don’t know what he has to say”.
I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
You may want to note that although I believe an attack on Iran is very possibly imminent, according to Scott Ritter and many others who know better than you and I, I have never stated a date that I thought an attack would occur. I have only relayed on the predictions of others.
Welcome back, Chubster, I thought maybe you had died and gone to.. ummm… wherever those that love torture and hate democracy go.
Cinco de Mayo y no Bombo Irano.
El petitionale esta finito, eh Gringo Mikael?
Loco Chubbiente.
Tough to figure out where you are really coming from Mr. Spargo. The comment section on this site is often infested with NeoCon trolls whose comments are so confusing I wind up having no idea what they are saying. I seem to have wrongfully assumed you were one of ‘them’.
from: Impudent Child Mikael closing in on his 50th birthday.
#
I think people like Joseph McCarthy “would please with” your commentary if he were still living Mr. Spargo.
Comment by Mikael — April 28, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Pardoning my temporary bout of dyslexia, but …… HUH?
How the hell did you twist that into my statement which was pro-Socialist and pro-DNC???
Back in the 60’s I knew people who were persecuted by that drunk bastard!!! And the YOU!!! AN IMPUDENT CHILD!!! DARE TO LIKEN ME …. TO A MCCARTHY-ITE ???? You, young man, need to learn to respect your elders in the Leftist movment!!!!
I think people like Joseph McCarthy “would please with” your commentary if he were still living, Mr. Spargo.
Since Iran is building nuclear facilities purely for peaceful purposes we have nothing to worry about. Don’t about the Iranians. We should trust them. Remember, what Marx said, and I am paraphrasing here: “All people are basically good. When left to themselves they will do the right thing.”.
I think people like Max Schactman, Saul Alinsky, and Michael Harrington would please with where the DNC is at today if they were still living.
Bush better hurry up and bomb, there’s only three days left in April before these idiots look like…well..the idiots that they are.
Are these chuckleheads going to do a May petition too? How about June? July?
Now these are the kind of people I want running my country! They believe in busting the bad guys BEFORE they commit the crime these candidates “believe” is going to be committed.
(Didn’t Hollywood make a movie on this premise with Tom Cruise?)
Bush went to war on more than this, but I suppose “no intel” is better than “bad intel.” I’ll bet all these people are in the tank for Barack Hussein Obama. Listen to your hearts!
Is this the same David Swanson who’s great grandpa was a Jim Crow Senator from Virginia?
“We … believe that there are strong signs that the US government will bomb Iranian nuclear facilities before the end of April.”
Wow! You guys better hurry up and impeach. By the end of April? The Bushies are going crazy. Those candidates that signed that really have some good intel. Holy Moly. Impeach now or it’s World War Three! Wow. It doesn’t get much more dramatic than that.
War is not the answer. Peace is not the answer. Peace is naive. We don’t need peace. We need to quit focusing on wars around the world and begin to focus on wars here at home. First, end the failed wars on terror and drugs. Next, end the Federal Reserve bank and the income tax. Finally, the people rule again in freedom. We won’t need taxes because government will only need to pay for one thing, the regulation of its own practices against our freedom. Our country is not the only country in history to throw off oppression, but we can be the leaders in throwing off the current ruler of the world – inflation, greed, and debt. Will we let men of power and industrial elites continue to run our lives and determine our freedoms even after they have been exposed in the daylight. These blood-sucking parasites must stop. Get up! Stand up! Wake up!