All Posts Tagged With: "Pelosi"
Nancy Pelosi to Bring Immediate Relief to the Public
On Larry King Live just a few minutes ago, Nancy Pelosi, a self proclaimed Washington OUTSIDER, said this is what will give immediate relief (10 days) to Americans (at the gas pump).
First, Free Our Oil:
Then, Drill where already approved:
And Stop Speculation:
And Use Natural Gas:
Hmmm, maybe an airtight energy policy for America, now and into the future.
I call upon President Bush to open up the SPR, I know it would make some of our enemies happy, not sure about anything else.
What do you think The Nancy Pelosi Energy Policy would do to bring gas prices down and presumably keep them down?
young, self focus,e egotism, narcisism, can do whatever want, invincible no consequences
Beheading The Anti-Domestic Energy Independence Hysterics
Debunking the too-long and greedy oil ranters.
Arguments against contributing to energy independence by producing more domestic oil is that it will take at least 10, maybe 30 years before we see a drop of oil, and that greedy oil companies already have 86 million acres of leases provided by the federal government.
Research and analysis by Paul M. Weyrich and with Joseph Coors support founded the Heritage Foundation and then formed the Free Congress Foundation which, unlike Heritage, could act as a political action committee finds the following:
Larry Kudlow recently featured on his television show James T. Hackett, president and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Company, and he says it would take two or three years, depending upon where the oil was drilled. Indeed, said another expert if the right equipment were available it would take only one year to get the first oil since the oil companies know exactly where the oil is located in the outer continental shelf.
An oil shale expert estimates that the first 800 million barrels of oil from shale could be available in two or three years. The remaining estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil from shale would take longer to have ready because they would be more difficult to extricate so the sooner you begin the faster it arrives on market.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who used to be in the oil business, said the reason oil companies are not drilling on the 86 million acres is that there is no substantial oil available on those lands to make drilling economically viable. Oil companies have explored those areas and found that they would produce little. So, to accuse oil companies of greed is an unfounded assertion.
Weyrich says pro-energy independence forces have done a terrible job of education allowing touchy feely and harebrained ideas to be pushed that proponents admit are far, far in the future. Meanwhile consumers chaff and suffer from $5 a gallon fuel prices.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pulled measures lifting the ban on drilling from the House calendar. Weyrich says that the Democratic majority whip’s count demonstrated that the pro-drilling forces had enough votes to lift the ban.
So, Weyrich says representatives and senators should initiate discharge petitions. Maybe, just maybe, a majority of legislators would be willing to ignore the majority leadership. At minimum it would bring things to a head and the majority of voters who want more domestic oil produced could see for themselves who are the obstructionists.
Catching up with Shirley Golub
When I interviewed Shirley Golub on May 3, she was in the midst of challenging Nancy Pelosi for her Congressional seat in San Francisco’s 8th District. Three days prior to the election (May 31), I phoned to check in with Shirley just to how things were going with the election just around the corner.
D: So, Shirley, how are things going out there on the left coast?
S: Well, it’s pretty amazing! I have three days left to make an impact here.
D: What are you focusing on right now?
S: Well, right now, I have volunteers lined up to walk the neighborhoods and distribute flyers. I have another set of volunteers going out to put up signs. I also have volunteers from all over the country making last-minute phone calls on my behalf.
D: How has media coverage of your campaign been in the last month?
S: Well, it’s been disappointing. It’s disappointing enough when the mainstream media doesn’t provide coverage, in spite of the fact that I’m challenging the nation’s first female Speaker of the House. However, it’s especially disappointing when the progressive media is missing in action.
D: What do you think the reason is for the progressive media’s lack of attention?
S: I’m not sure. Maybe they think I’m running against Cindy Sheehan, which I’m not. The idea is to get as many progressives in as possible. If I win against Nancy Pelosi in the primary, then Cindy Sheehan will just run in another district. The whole idea was for us to run as a one-two punch, if you will. If I fail in my bid to win the primary, then Cindy will run against Nancy Pelosi in November as an Independent.
D: I know Cindy was in the process of getting the required number of signatures. How is that going?
S: Right now, she has about 2,000 of the 10,000 she needs to get on the ballot. I believe she has until August to get all the signatures she needs.
D: Has Nancy Pelosi responded to your challenge at all?
S: Not at all. She’s been running as though she doesn’t have an opponent. I’m sure she sees my candidacy as nothing other than an irritant.”
At this point, Shirley had to cut the conversation short. I assumed it was because there was so much to do with so little time remaining. We agreed to reconvene and continue the interview the day after the election. When I spoke with Shirley on June 4, the day after the election, I found out why she had to end our conversation so abruptly.
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich appeared together in an ad on climate change that was paid for a group called the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization started by former Vice President Al Gore. Several people contacted Shirley encouraging her to file against Speaker Pelosi because they believed that the ad was a violation of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which limits the degree to which a candidate’s campaign can work with an independent group.
After investigating the situation and thinking about it for several days, Shirley decided it was not worth pursuing. As it turns out, Judicial Watch did file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore may want to save the world, but they still have to follow federal law.” After a few more minutes on this topic, Shirley and I picked up the interview, albeit from a different standpoint.
D: So, the election is over. How did you do?
S: Well, the numbers show that I got 10.83% of the vote. That means that something like one in ten voted for me.
D: Considering what some of the presidential candidates did on a national level, I’d say you did pretty well.
S: Oh, thanks. It would probably have been higher had the voter turnout been better. It was pretty low. We tried to use the rent control issue to increase the number of people going to the polls. A bit more media coverage would also have helped.
D: And how did the rent control ballot question fare?
S: It did well. We managed to keep rent control in place.
D: What else has happened since the election? Any more excitement on any fronts?
S: Well, I just did a press conference for the California Impeachment Slate. We have about twenty candidates running across the state on an impeachment platform. We’re trying to get Monica Conyers to run for Congress in Detroit on an impeachment platform. Do you know who she is?
D: I could take a guess.
S: She’s the wife of Representative John Conyers, who is on the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment is stalled right now. She is the President Pro Tempore of the Detroit City Council. In May of 2007, she placed a pro-impeachment resolution in front of her colleagues and it passed unanimously!
D: So, Shirley, now that this is all over, do you think you’ll stay in politics?
S: I don’t really know. Politics is a lot of work, even though it can be very rewarding. You know, my goal was always to push the impeachment issue, so I don’t know what the future holds for me beyond that. Right now, I’m just going to lay back a bit.
D: Well, thanks, Shirley for giving us a look inside your campaign and taking the time to talk to me now that the battle is over. I hope we can stay in touch.
S: Oh, you’re welcome and we will stay in touch. Talk to you later.
A few days after this interview was over, I received an email from Shirley. She forwarded an email that she had received from another member of the California Impeachment Slate who attached a story that had run in the Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert. The article stated that only 30% of registered voters gave Nancy Pelosi a positive job performance rating in a survey conducted at the end of May, just before the election. Who knows what might have happened had Shirley Golub’s campaign received more media coverage.
Even though Shirley Golub fell short in her attempt to remove Nancy Pelosi from office, her impeachment message was not lost on her constituents. Perhaps Shirley has lost this battle, but the war can still be won!
The case for impeachment
It’s too bad George Bush wasn’t caught hanging out with high-priced call girls. It seems that’s the only way we can get suspect public servants out of office here in America. Lying to Congress and the American people hasn’t done it. Killing more than a million people and laying a sovereign nation to waste hasn’t done it. Abandoning his citizens after the worst natural disaster in history (Hurricane Katrina) hasn’t done it. Violating the terms of the Geneva Convention by allowing torture hasn’t done it. Yet, mere hours had passed after Eliot Spitzer’s sordid little sexcapades became public knowledge before the “I” word surfaced. Now, I’ve been in favor of raising the impeachment discussion, but there’s one little problem. They got the wrong guy.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
It’s not that I think Eliot Spitzer should be given a free ride. What he did to his family, first and foremost, is despicable. His behavior certainly makes a sham of his image as a crusader of ethics in government. However, I can’t help but feel that everyone’s response to this scandal is just a bit over the top, particularly when we have such an immoral, law-breaking group of thugs leading what was once seen as the greatest nation in the world. <!–[endif]–>
A rap sheet of high crimes and misdemeanors
The Constitution states that government officials can be impeached for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The “high crimes and misdemeanors” portion is, of course, open to interpretation. However, most legal scholars agree that an impeachable offense does not necessarily have to be an “indictable” offense. Impeachable offenses can be behavior that undermines the integrity of a public office; shows disregard for constitutional duties or involves the abuse of power. Richard Nixon’s impeachment was for illegal wiretapping of political opponents and obstruction of justice for trying to cover it up. Bill Clinton’s impeachment was for having sex with an intern and then lying about it to a grand jury. Illegal wiretapping and lying are legal, historical precedents. We have to go no further to justify filing articles of impeachment against George W. Bush.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
There are two indisputable infractions that warrant impeachment. The invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq) under false pretenses is without question an impeachable offense. George Bush and those in his service lied about many things in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, including that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that it was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. A complete list of the Bush administration’s 935 lies leading up to the war in Iraq can be digested at http://www.publicintegrity.org
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
The second infraction is the illegal wiretapping of American citizens under the guise of protecting us from terrorism. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure, and states that no search warrants shall be issued unless there is evidence of a crime. This action also violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires that a secret FISA court approve warrants for national security wiretaps. It is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the limits of that law. It doesn’t end there, however. George Bush has been involved in other reprehensible activities that may also be impeachable offenses. <!–[endif]–>
The Bush administration’s practice of torture, kidnapping and “extraordinary rendition” of detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan to other countries is a violation of both national and international laws. In the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay not only violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice but also Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention. It should also be noted that both U.S. and international law states that if a prisoner dies because of such a violation, the penalty is death. Many so-called “unlawful combatants” have died under illegal U.S. capture as a result of torture. One such story, about a young Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar who was beaten to death in 2002 while in U.S. military custody, was told in this year’s Academy Award winner for Best Documentary, Taxi To The Dark Side.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
Other potentially impeachable reprehensible infractions include obstructing the investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposure of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative. Her husband, Joseph Wilson, was the envoy sent to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy uranium from Niger and determined that the story was not true. The faulty intelligence found its way into President Bush’s State of the Union address eleven months later anyway. Wilson was a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq war and it is widely believed that the White House, as payback for her husband’s position, leaked Plame’s name. There has even been speculation that Bush conspired in the initial outing.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
There have been questions surrounding the 9-11 terrorist attacks almost from the beginning. Conspiracy theorists abound and most have been made out to look like crackpots. Yet, there are some nagging facts that can’t be dismissed and that was the reason for pressing for the establishment of the 9-11 commission to begin with. It is no secret that the Bush administration obstructed the investigation into the attacks and that he lied to both Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 commission. Even the most reasonable person must conclude that this administration has something to hide. Former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, who served on the 9-11 commission, criticized the Bush administrations efforts to hide information about the government’s law enforcement and intelligence failures prior to the attacks.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
It is clear that George Bush has seriously undermined the office of the Presidency of the United States, shown reckless disregard for the basic principles of the Constitution, and abused his presidential powers. Our forefathers made it clear that the pursuit of impeachment in such a case is not just our right. It is our duty.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
No more lame excuses
Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table purely for political reasons, not because it was in America’s best interest. She didn’t want to give the Republicans political ammunition. At other times, Pelosi has stated that ending the war in Iraq is more important than pursuing articles of impeachment. It is 2008 and all the Congress has done is continue to fund the Iraq war to President Bush’s desired levels. There is no real end to the Iraq war in sight. When I wrote to my own [Democratic] congressman regarding the “I” word his excuse for not pursuing impeachment was that it would take time and energy away from getting any meaningful legislation passed. What meaningful legislation has been passed since the November 2006 election?
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
What could be more meaningful than restoring some level of trust in our government? What single piece of legislation could possibly be more important than the act of restoring the power to the people taken away by Bush and Cheney’s willful expansion of the executive branch? What better vehicle to send the message to Bush’s successor, regardless of party affiliation, that this type of lawless government will not be tolerated?
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>
Those in Congress who would prefer to take the high road and wait out Bush’s final term will tell you that there’s not enough time to pursue impeachment proceedings. However, the impeachment process itself, regardless of how much time Bush has left in office, is valuable. It would remove President Bush’s ability to hide behind the cloak of Executive Privilege. No doubt President Bush would have you believe that pursuing impeachment in a time of “war” weakens us and makes us more susceptible to a terrorist attack. But just the opposite is true. Holding our elected leaders accountable for their actions shows strength of character and is essential to restoring America’s integrity.
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>
Move over, Nancy. Shirley’s on the table!
In November 2006, nobody was more excited than I when the Democrats took back control of the House (and the Senate). The election amounted to the equivalent of a ‘no confidence’ vote for the Bush administration. Equally as exciting was the prospect of having the first-ever female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. As an avowed political junkie, I followed many candidates, not just those in Massachusetts. I had always considered Pelosi a solid liberal. Those of us who knew for certain that the Bush-Cheney administration had committed plenty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ honestly believed that articles of impeachment would finally be filed. The euphoria came to an abrupt end on November 8, when Pelosi said during a news conference, “I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.” Impeachment, or the lack thereof, was just the first of a string of disappointments that would be served up by this particular crop of Democrats.
The disappointment over impeachment was made even more intense by the Democrats’ failure to end the war in Iraq. This was undoubtedly the most important issue of the mid-term elections. Not only couldn’t the Democrats end the war, but they also signed the check each and every time George Bush delivered it to them. On April 24, 2007 Dennis Kucinich filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney that still languish in the House Judiciary Committee waiting for John Conyers (D-MI) to take action. Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), also a member of the committee, undertook an online petition to force some kind of action months ago, and he is still pushing today to no avail. I do not remember exactly when I heard of Shirley Golub, but I remember being impressed that an ordinary citizen was willing to take on the powerful Nancy Pelosi. I began to follow Shirley’s campaign more closely.
Last week, when I received an email with her rubber chicken ad, I decided I had to get in touch with Shirley Golub to get her take on Pelosi, impeachment, Iraq and other issues. We made contact via email and set up and appointment for a phone interview. We spoke just this morning on a variety of topics.
On Impeachment
Shirley’s campaign prioritizes a number of issues including ending our occupation of Iraq, providing health care for all, and passing the Matthew Shepard Act. However, her primary reason for running in San Francisco’s 8th district is that she believes that Nancy Pelosi is the roadblock to impeachment.
D: What have you heard about the articles of impeachment that have been hanging around Congress? I’ve heard rumors they’re moving along, but I do not actually see any movement.
S: I haven’t heard anything about them going ahead. It’s been in the Judiciary Committee and that’s where it’s stalled. It’s up to John Conyers to move it ahead. Of course, Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida is also on that committee and he’s been demanding that they move forward. He has an online petition going. I’m not sure where the count stands right now, but the last I heard is that he had over 200,000 signatures. Impeachment still isn’t moving ahead.
D: It’s discouraging…
S: It’s reprehensible. Impeachment is the only avenue we have right now to keep Bush and Cheney from moving ahead with whatever plans they have. I’m not privy to exactly what their plans are, but they can’t be good given their past track record.
D: I’ve written to my local Congressman, John Tierney, and he repeats what I hear most often from the Democratic side: It’s either that there isn’t enough time to advance articles of impeachment or that pursuing impeachment will get in the way of the Congress working on more meaningful legislation. What meaningful legislation? Nothing meaningful has come out of the Congress. What about the American people? Where is the outrage?
S: Well, the American people have been brainwashed by both the Congress and the mainstream media. Have you seen “Body of War\” by Phil Donohue?”
D: Yes, I have.
S: Well, it was the same thing back then. The mainstream media and certain members of Congress just keep repeating what the administration and the generals are saying when they say the surge is going well, or the war is going well. And that’s all the American people hear and those who don’t explore alternative news media believe what they hear. It’s the same principle with impeachment. They constantly hear that there’s not enough time or that there are more important issues to deal with, and that’s what they believe. They think the Congress knows better than they do. They need to be educated. You know, the web site afterdowningstreet.org refutes all these points about impeachment.
And as for more important legislation, Congress will point to the stimulus package. You know what they can do with their stimulus package! Look, this idea that there isn’t enough time to pursue articles of impeachment is not valid. Two weeks ago you had the president admit on national television that he approved the use of torture. That’s an impeachable offense! It would take no time to file articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney.
D: What’s your take on why Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? I’ve had people tell me that she’s taking the politically expedient route. She doesn’t want to be accused of ‘paying back’ the administration because it might hurt her politically down the road. Do you think that’s valid?
S: Well, first of all, let me say that if she moved to impeach Bush and Cheney, she’d be President, so it isn’t about political expediency. I’ve heard a number of rumors. First of all, there has been wiretapping going on for years, so who knows what the administration may have found out about her. Is she or her family being threatened? There have been rumors about that. Is it corruption? She’s very well off financially, so how much money does she need?
D: So nobody knows the real reason for her taking impeachment off the table.
S: Not really. All I know is that when you take an oath of office you better take it seriously or step down.
On Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, was another woman I had been following. Cindy is as outspoken about the war as Shirley is about impeachment. After a brief period of disillusionment, Cindy Sheehan announced that she would run against Pelosi if she didn’t bring the war in Iraq to an end. The mainstream media had covered Cindy Sheehan for a while, but then the story dropped off the face of the earth. I could not find an update anywhere.
D: Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? I had heard she was going to challenge Nancy Pelosi, but she seems to have disappeared!
S: Not at all. Cindy said she was going to take some time off and she did that. She has now moved to San Francisco. You don’t have to live in the district where you’re running for Congress, but she felt it was the right thing to do. Just this past Friday, she filed papers with the City Election Office and Cindy’s now working to get the 10,000+ signatures she needs to appear on the ballot.
Now, people say to me, “You’re running against Cindy! How can you do that?”
I am not running against Cindy and this is what has people confused. It’s important that people understand this. I’m actually running in the June 3 primary to oust Nancy Pelosi so that she doesn’t even get to run in November.
D: So we need to make it clear you’re running in the primary and that’s coming up in June.
S: Right. I’m running in the primary as a Progressive Democrat. I’m running because we need action on impeachment now and I firmly believe that Nancy Pelosi is the stumbling block we have to get past. We need to send a message to Congress that we’re not going to have our rights taken away by anybody. Now, Nancy Pelosi won’t physically be out of Congress until January 2009, but if she’s defeated in November, she will be incapacitated.
Cindy is the fall back position, if you will, in the event that Pelosi doesn’t lose in the primary. Cindy’s road is a bit tougher as she is running as an Independent, and the November turnout is likely to be much higher than that of the June primary. We’re hoping that the June ballot issue on rent control will motivate the voters to come out since 70% of the people in the 8th district are renters. We’re hoping it will increase the turnout of progressive thinkers.
Now, you saw what happened with Donna Edwards in Maryland where she defeated seven-term incumbent Al Wynn in the Democratic primary. So, people will respond if the information gets out there. If we can do that, then I think we have a definite chance of defeating Nancy Pelosi in June.
On Funding the Iraq War
The voters were clear back in 2006. It was time to end our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible. Nancy Pelosi herself said, “This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer.” The Democrats made a commitment to the American people to end the war. Fast forward to 2008: Not only is the war still going on, but there has also been an escalation (which we refer to as a ‘surge’). If that isn’t enough, the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi continue to rubber stamp George Bush’s budget requests to continue fighting in Iraq.
D: Let’s talk about Congress funding the Iraq war. Instead of simply cutting off funding, what we have are the Democrats attaching amendments to the bill so that they can get something in return for giving Bush his war money. Do you find this as disturbing as I do? They could simply stop funding the war right now and be done with it.
S: Let’s face it Congress has the power of the purse strings. Nancy Pelosi decides which bills will come up and which will not. What she is doing right now is combining the $100 billion Bush is asking for right now with the $78 billion planned for the fall so that it doesn’t come up again and get in the way of the election.
D: Again, ‘political expediency’ seems to be the operative phrase here.
S: It’s disgusting that she’s doing this, and you can tell I’m passionate about running against Nancy Pelosi! You know, we don’t have enough money to spend on education in this country because we’re spending billions of dollars on this war. Bush is putting your children and grandchildren in debt for years to come because he’s borrowing money from China, Japan and other countries to fund the war. They own us!
On the 2008 Election
I couldn’t resist bringing up the election, not that I see either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as progressive candidates. The only progressive candidate in the bunch was Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Oddly enough, it was Kucinich who inspired Shirley Golub to run.
D: What do you think about the 2008 presidential election? What about the two Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
S: Well, they are both incredible people, but I haven’t got a clear picture of where they stand on the issues and they do shift from time to time. Neither support HR676, which is basically Medicare for all. You know, we are the richest country in the world and we spend the most money on health care, but the health of our people is consistently ranked between 27 and 34, depending upon which study you read. The point is that for the amount of money we spend, our rating is incredibly low. More than half the bankruptcies in this country are around medical issues.
People feel secure if they have a health plan in place, but what they don’t realize is that a significant percentage of the premiums they pay, sometimes as much as 30%, go to administering the program. The money does not go to the doctors or hospitals. It’s a profit-oriented system. If we had Medicare for all, it would be a vastly different situation. I don’t know if you remember a doctor named Patch Adams.
D: I certainly do.
S: He still travels around the country raising money for ‘humane’ hospitals, hospitals that will treat everyone regardless of their financial or insurance situation. He has been taking the time to talk about the benefits of HR676 along the way.
D: I have to tell you that I am terrified we’ll end up with John McCain, who I see as a carbon copy of George W. Bush. What do you think of his chances?
S: Of course, we don’t have a crystal ball, so we cannot know for sure. In 2000 and 2004, George Bush really should not have been given the gift of the presidency. In 2000, there were significant election issues in Florida and then there were irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 campaign. Will we even get to an election?
We’ve heard about the possibility of martial law on the Internet and, of course, you have to take that with a grain of salt. However, martial law would effectively suspend the elections.
D: I wouldn’t put anything past this administration.
S: Exactly.
About Her Impeachment Play
Shirley Golub is countering the brainwashing being conducted by the administration and mainstream media by producing a full two-act theater production about the impeachment trial of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney. I asked her to provide a bit more detail.
D: So tell me a bit about your impeachment play! Sounds interesting!
Well, Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar who actually wrote the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton and Alberto Gonzales, wrote it along with several other gifted people. Of course, Gonzales stepped down before he was impeached. The play is called “I,” and it opens on May 17 at the International Studies Academy Theater, which holds about 500 people. We need everyone to come out and see it. It’s designed to be educational so that people will understand why impeachment should be on the table. Of course, the Congress stretches time out as much as it can, but it’ll only take us a couple of hours to educate the public!
Our conversation came to a close on that note, and I was even more convinced that we
need more courageous people like Shirley Golub and Donna Edwards to challenge those
who have become too comfortable in their positions.