Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Should President Bush / Chaney be impeached with a jury tria

    New people joining the site all the time so I am reposting this... I hope the moderators lets this shine through the light of day

    Should President Bush / Chaney be impeached with a jury trial for Treason/Sedition?

    Let me remind you of some of the issues this man has us mired in. I am not letting this corrupt individual off as easily as some of you would like. So let me make my points of order than you can chastise me. I talk about the last amnesty that Bush wanted to pass. But the amnesty was just a piece of the puzzle President Bush needed for the North American Union Agenda to fall into place so keep that in mind.

    I believe this man has lied to the American people and continue to do so under the veil of what he likes to call Presidential privilege (meaning you and I have no right to know what our governmental officials are doing). We are not talking about the pentagon or the CIA Top Secret stuff here… were talking in the line of what direction is this President taking this country.

    I believe this man has committed Treason by stealth in trying to form a (NAU) North American Union that resembles the (EU) European Union. This was done without congressional oversight and hidden from the American people. Treason is seldom done publicly because of the ramifications and this man is smart enough that all of this could be a done deal before this country knows what has just happened. When the President was questioned about it in Canada, he not only side stepped the question but said it was part of a conspiracy theory.

    I believe that charges need to be leveled against this man and him called before congress and let him answer questions before the American pubic. If he lies then Impeachment should not only follow, charges of Treason need to happen as soon as possible. If he is telling the truth than he has nothing to worry about….

    Over an over I hear from my peers that Bush should be impeached, but this country will be in even worse shape if Vice President Chaney takes over as President or even worse if Pelosi fills the void as President. I disagree; if Bush is impeached it will serve as a warning to not only Chaney and Pelosi but any other politician in the near future that the American people will not tolerate a President that lies to it’s people that does irreparable damage to our sovereignty as a Nation.

    This country is supposed to be the leader of the free world, and we as Americans deserve a competent leader. More so, the world deserves a competent leader of the free world, not a globalist that strips the wealth from country to country and pushes agendas that cripple the middle class to give more wealth to global organizations.

    Never in the history of the United States has any one individual done the amount of damage this man has done, not only to this country but the world as a whole. We have lost our credibility as a world leader and as one that always tries to do the right thing. We have already lost the world’s confidence. The man is so corrupt even the Democrats don't want him impeached; Bush makes the Democratic candidate for President, Hillary Clinton look good and that itself should be a scary thought. Nancy Pelosi stated impeachment is off the table. For those of you that do not know, this woman is about as liberal as they get and as anti Republican as she could be….. But impeachment is off the table? Think about that for a moment.

    Bush has single handedly crippled the Republican Party time and time again. I am a conservative Republican and right now feel that I do not have a party. Republicans are changing party tickets to Independent and the Republicans are losing financial contributions from even the most loyal of its party members.

    I feel the only way for the Republicans to get any sort of respect back to the party is to oust the corruption and that includes the current president. It is truly amazing how far a party can slide in such a short period of time. Bush is not the complete problem… but he is a very big part of it.

    It’s astounding; the World knows this man is an idiot; why can’t this country see it. Like I said earlier, I am a Republican and I voted for this crack pot twice. I have been humbled to the bone and will never ever vote a straight party ticket ever again, but I have not lost all hope.

    I would also like to state that many have said President Bush has kept us safe since 9/11 and free of terror attacks. I would like to say it was more from the 9/11 commission and not Bush. Not long ago it was reported that terrorists have been crossing the Mexican / American border and we the people are in for a rude awakening if we think we are safe from harm. Don’t think for a minute the border has been sealed and you are safe. Neither is a true statement.

    Below is a list of President Bush’s blunders… directly or indirectly that effect you, me and the Country.

    - The Economy (Bush) Greenspan and the Bernanke goes by Bushes Guidance ... liquidity from Bush has the markets ready to collapse.
    - Excessive liquidity flooded the banks which fueled the housing collapse
    - Sub Prime fiasco (Financed by the Fed)
    - the national debt prior to Bush was just a 3 Trillion Dollars prior to Bush and and has since climbed 6 trillion dollars under Bush. It now totals over 9 Trillion Dollars
    - A US very, very bad recession is right around the corner IF NOT DEPRESSION. If you think I am kidding you might want to read moneymax.com and get up to speed.
    - Billions of US investor dollars lost within the last month alone in the stock market and is SCREAMING FOR A TAX PAYER BAILOUT
    - Billions of foreign currency lost because of the liquidity of the Fed under Bush. Yes, the EU and the bank of Japan as well as several others have been taking a beating because of the contagion that has rocked the world banks
    - The Rich are getting Richer; the Poor and Getting Poorer and the Middle class is being eliminated
    - Talk of the Amero when our markets collapse and don’t think this is to far out there. If markets collapse we may not have a choice. If the dollar has no value, people will treat it like the plague.
    - The War .... This is the most incompetent commander in chief ever ... almost 4,000 war dead... the injured and the severely injured are way to numerous to count
    - He even out sourced his Job as Commander and Chief to a 4 star general.... NO Commander and Chief has ever, ever done that
    - Billions and Billions spent in Iraq and nothing works. Yet Haliburton continues to rake in billions upon billions of US dollars through no bid contracts while moving its head quarters to the country of Dubai so they will not have to pay taxes (yep, all that funding is now all tax free). Chaney used to have a seat on the board and stocks as well, although now I just do not know.
    - New talk of WW III with this nut case leading the way.
    - Iran Quds force killing the best soldiers on this planet (Our Protectors) the US ARMED FORCES and he makes jokes as he stutters on the podium. The advanced IED penetrators coming out of Iran is doing the most damage to our fine soldiers and is killing and injuring up to 80% of our soldiers. Yet we hear the same ole rhetoric coming from a lame duck saying we cannot prove it.
    - The Terrorist organizations are growing and now we have confirmed that terrorist from the Middle East crossed into this country from the Mexican border.
    - The all volunteer force is depleted and now we are looking at opening up the draft again
    - Worn out military equipment
    - Exhausted Soldiers
    - Veterans hospital worn out
    - Illegal Immigrant invasion and it still hasn't’ slowed down to the level we are making progress. More are still coming across every day than what we expel.
    - Amnesty giveaway of US benefits
    - Social security to Illegal aliens
    - Law of the Sea Treaty
    - Directive 51
    - Destroying key video tapes of water boarding
    - Five more FREE trade deals pending. 2 passed
    - Interfering with the Texas inmate sentenced to death. Bush tried to intervene on behalf of the world court which has no jurisdiction.
    - how many citizens a day are killed by a drunk illegal alien (DUI) (Under your watch) Not only am I talking to Mr. Bush, I am talking to you.
    - How many women and little children have been raped by illegal alien predator (Under your watch) Why have not more moms and das gone after the president. Where are the greatest generation almost all of whom are grand parents.
    - Wet foot Dry Foot Cubans getting 10,000 dollars after processing with ICE
    - after 9/11 and the borders are not even close to being sealed
    - H1-B Visa mess
    - Out sourcing of American jobs
    - Off shoring corporations
    - INFLATION = the Fed has cooked the books... You are a nut case if you expect us to believe that inflation is within 2% which would raise the interest rate to get it under control. The unofficial guess is that it is running between 6-8 percent. But the fed insists that it is stubbornly just above 2 %
    - Hyper inflation right around the corner not long after the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates and look for a seriously devalued dollar which is already at a 15 year low against the Euro. Since 2001, the dollar has lost 30% of its value.
    - The department of homeland security (What kind of joke is this). Ask yourself if you feel safer and be honest.
    - Katrina (Waist, Fraud and abuse of Billions of taxpayer dollars)
    - Scooter Libby Pardoned (BUT)
    - Our own Border Patrol officers are being locked up doing 11 -12 years while we give a free pass to a drug smuggler from a corrupt Federal Prosecutor Johnny Sutton
    - The Abromoff scandal
    - NAFTA
    - CAFTA
    - NAFTA Super highway taking funds from the States Department of Transportation. These funds are needed to repair infrastructure like the bridge that recently collapsed. So what we are doing is building a toll road with American tax dollars, so Americans can be charged by an company from Spain that won a no bid contract that will take funding that we need to repair up to 80,000 bridges that are in serious need of repair… what kind of reasoning is this?
    - The SPP has been devastating to the economy
    - CARL ROVE (this was supposed to be Bushes Brain) if so I hope the lobotomy worked ... this man has advised King George W. Bush on the Amnesty Issue and Social Security
    - Outing Valery Plame (One of our agents) destroying her career
    - Mexican congress and the Mexican President is sending a letter to request Bush pardon Elvira Arellano because of her son Saul Arellano by granting her clemency..... Watch this one close. President Bush is neck deep with the corrupt Mexican government
    - Secretary of Homeland security Michael Chertoff (Just another STUPID over paid government employee) I have a gut feeling. Are we supposed to feel safe with this idiot at the helm of our nations security
    - Alberto Gonzolez and the firing of the 8 US attorneys. This might be a good man that was way in over his head with a corrupt administration.
    - Vice President Chaney claiming executive privilege and protection from the President in hiding any and all information that should be open to the public
    - The Sec. of Commerce is currently on a 3 nation South American tour trying to drum up 5 more free trade agreements. Free trade agreements hurt the American economy. What we need is a fair trade agreement. One that doesn't’t hurt the American consumer by giving unfair trade advantages to mega corporations at the tax payers expense.
    - The Dubai ports deal
    - Harriet Myers for the supreme court of the land… Oh common now!
    - The Abromoff scandal
    - Inaction on Darfur. Millions killed, genocide, starvation, rapes and we stand back and do nothing. I am assuming because there is no oil.
    - Tony Blair forced to resign because of being joined at the hip with Bush.
    - The President on Australia lost his bid to re-election because of Bush's influence over the war
    - Tainted pet food from China killing our beloved animals.
    - Tainted food from China passed off as edible and not checked by the Federal government.
    - lead paint on toys that are meant for our children after 15 years ago being promised that china would clean up it's act on lead paint... yes, it has been 15 years of promising
    - International hatred of the US by 95% of the world because of greedy corporation's and lobbyist that President Bush panders too
    - Middle eastern men crossing the border (terrorists) and we do nothing (Must be the wait for another 9/11 scenario before we do something)
    - You Sir need to be tried by an International Court of your peers and just sentencing to occur for war crimes against humanity for your killing of the international community. Iraq is far from over, we went in for false pretenses and it will be many years before we can leave completely. There maybe terrorists there now after our invasion, but they were not there in force prior to the war. If you can really say the Iraqi’s are a lot better off now, maybe you should go spend 24 hours there and see how safe you feel… then tell that to the estimated 600,000 that have been killed and the 2,000,000 that have been displaced running for their lives.
    - President Bush needs to be tried by an American court; charged by American citizens and just sentencing to occur for war crimes against humanity for your implication in the killing of American citizens by illegal immigrants; the rape of women and children; all the DUI's committed by the Illegal Immigrant population as well as the deaths of the American motorists... Treason is the most severe we need to focus on. The list just seems to go on and on like the energizer bunny. This President is the gift that keeps on giving all year long.

    I think that we the people should be very afraid of all of the damage this one individual has created and he is not done yet. He maybe a lame duck, but he still has enormous powers. Some of this stuff may not be able to be undone…. And that is scary in itself. But we need to act and act soon. The political elite keep pushing smaller components of the Amnesty bill piece by piece and are hiding it in the war spending to pass it through the gauntlet.

    Now we the People are racists because we will no longer bow to all of the crap stated above... I feel sick going through all of this info, upgrading and proofing all of this junk.. But it needs to be said. I am far from being a writer, and am trying to clean this up so please excuse my errors.

    Who am I to say all of this? I am a 90% disabled veteran that has completed 21.5 years of service to this country. I am a conservative republican without a party. I am a dad and a granddad at 47 years old and I am a very mad American.

    I truly wish I could put on a pair of BuL_ SHI_ deflectors over my eyes and wish it all to go away... but I cannot
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member MyAmerica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,074
    Should President Bush / Chaney be impeached with a jury trial for Treason/Sedition?
    I believe the House does the impeachment and the trial is held in the Senate. Impeachment is not held by a jury trials.

    Grounds for Impeachment [Return to Top]
    Mason's suggestion to add "maladministration," Madison's objection to it as "vague," and Mason's substitution of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors agst the State" are the only comments in the Philadelphia convention specifically directed to the constitutional language describing the grounds for impeachment of the President. Mason's objection to limiting the grounds to "Treason and Bribery" was that treason would "not reach many great and dangerous offences" including " [a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution." His willingness to substitute "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," especially given his apparent familiarity with the English use of the term as evidenced by his reference to the Warren Hastings impeachment, suggests that he believed "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" would cover the offenses about which he was concerned.

    Contemporary comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No, 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:

    ". . . those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

    Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. Thus, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power of the House reaches "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." Edmund Randolph said in the Virginia convention that the President may be impeached if he "misbehaves." He later cited the example of the President's receipt of presents or emoluments from a foreign power in violation of the constitutional prohibition of Article I, section 9. In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself". or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

    "[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; . . ."

    In reply to the suggestion that the President could summon the Senators of only a few states to ratify a treaty, Madison said,

    "Were the President to commit any thing so atrocious . . he would be impeached and convicted, as a majority of the states would be affected by his misdemeanor."

    Edmund Randolph referred to the checks upon the President:

    "It has too often happened that powers delegated for the purpose of promoting the happiness of a community have been perverted to the advancement of the personal emoluments of the agents of the people; but the powers of the President are too well guarded and checked to warrant this illiberal aspersion."

    Randolph also asserted, however, that impeachment would not reach errors of judgment: "No man ever thought of impeaching a man for an opinion. It would be impossible to discover whether the error in opinion resulted from a wilful mistake of the heart, or an involuntary fault of the head."

    James Iredell made a similar distinction in the North Carolina convention, and on the basis of this principle said, "I suppose the only instances, in which the President would be liable to impeachment, would be where he had received a bribe, or had acted from some corrupt motive or other." But he went on to argue that the President:

    "...must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, -- in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."

    In short, the framers who discussed impeachment in the state ratifying conventions, as well as other delegates who favored the Constitution, implied that it reached offenses against the government, and especially abuses of constitutional duties. The opponents did not argue that the grounds for impeachment had been limited to criminal offenses.

    An extensive discussion of the scope of the impeachment power occurred in the House of Representatives in the First Session of the First Congress. The House was debating the power of the President to remove the head of an executive department appointed by him with the advice and consent of the Senate, an issue on which it ultimately adopted the position, urged primarily by James Madison, that the Constitution vested the power exclusively in the President. The discussion in the House lends support to the view that the framers intended the impeachment power to reach failure of the President to discharge the responsibilities of his office.

    Madison argued during the debate that the President would be subject to impeachment for "the wanton removal of meritorious officers." He also contended, that the power of the President unilaterally to remove subordinates was "absolutely necessary" because "it will make him in a peculiar manner, responsible for [the] conduct" of executive officers. It would, Madison said:

    ". . . subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses."

    Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who had also been a framer though he had opposed the ratification of the Constitution, disagreed with Madison's contentions about the impeachability of the President. He could not be impeached for dismissing a good officer, Gerry said, because he would be "doing an act which the Legislature has submitted to his discretion. " And he should not be held responsible for the acts of subordinate officers, who were themselves subject to impeachment and should bear their own responsibility.

    Another framer, Abraham Baldwin of Georgia, who supported Madison's position on the power to remove subordinates, spoke of the President's impeachability for failure to perform the duties of the executive. If, said Baldwin, the President "in a fit of passion" removed "all the good officers of the Government" and the Senate were unable to choose qualified successors, the consequence would be that the President "would be obliged to do the duties himself; or, if he did not, we would impeach him, and turn him out of office, as he had done others."

    Those who asserted that the President had exclusive removal power suggested that it was necessary because impeachment, as Elias Boudinot of New Jersey contended, is "intended as a punishment for a crime, and not intended as the ordinary means of re-arranging the Departments." Boudinot suggested that disability resulting from sickness or accident "would not furnish any good ground for impeachment; it could not be laid as treason or bribery, nor perhaps as a high crime or misdemeanor." Fisher Ames of Massachusetts argued for the President's removal power because "mere intention [to do a mischief] would not be cause for impeachment" and "there may be numerous causes for removal that do not amount to a crime." Later in the same speech Ames suggested that impeachment was available if an officer "misbehaves" and for "mal-conduct."

    One further piece of contemporary evidence is provided by the Lectures on Law delivered by James Wilson of Pennsylvania in 1790 and 1791. Wilson described impeachments in the United States as "confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments." And, he said:

    "The doctrine of impeachments is of high import in the constitutions of free states. On one hand, the most powerful magistrates should be amenable to the Law: on the other hand, elevated characters should not be sacrificed merely on account of their elevation. No one should be secure while he violates the constitution and the laws: every one should be secure while he observes them. . . ."

    From the comments of the framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of the delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly. It was intended to provide a check on the President through impeachment, but not to make him dependent on the unbridled will of the Congress.

    Impeachment, as Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833, applies to offenses of "a political character":

    "Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power. . .; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interest in the discharge of the duties of political office. These are so various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law. They must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty. They must be judged of by the habits, and rules, and principles of diplomacy, or departmental operations and arrangements, or parliamentary practice, of executive customs and negotiations, of foreign, as well as domestic political movements; and in short, by a great variety of circumstances, as well those, which aggravate, as those, which extenuate, or justify the offensive acts, which do not properly belong to the judicial character in the ordinary administration of justice, and are far removed from the reach of municipal jurisprudence."
    American Impeachment Cases [Return to Top]
    Thirteen officers have been impeached by the House since 1787: one President, one cabinet officer, one United States Senator, and ten Federal judges. In addition there have been numerous resolutions and investigations in the House not resulting in impeachment. However, the action of the House in declining to impeach an officer is not particularly illuminating. The reasons for failing to impeach are generally not stated, and may have rested upon a failure of proof, legal insufficiency of the grounds, political judgment, the press of legislative business, or the closeness of the expiration of the session of Congress. On the other hand, when the House has voted to impeach an officer, a majority of the Members necessarily have concluded that the conduct alleged constituted grounds for impeachment.
    Lots of impeachment information at this site:

    http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPECIAL ... chor857855
    "Distrust and caution are the parents of security."
    Benjamin Franklin

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member MyAmerica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,074
    On the other hand, there is controversy about whether the president is subject to indictment (and therefore arrest) no matter who does the arresting. Given all the hot water presidents have been in since the days of Richard Nixon, you'd expect there to be a ready answer to this question by now. But there isn't.

    For example, at a 1998 Senate hearing on the subject chaired by John Ashcroft, professors Freedman and Turley said the president could be criminally indicted and prosecuted (at least under some circumstances); professors Amar and Bloch said he couldn't. Three former federal prosecutors also testified. Two said the president could be prosecuted; one said he couldn't.

    What we're talking about here is presidential immunity. The Constitution is silent on this question. It says the president can be impeached, but that raises as many questions as it answers. Can the president be indicted and tried? If so, must the president be impeached first? If convicted of a crime but not impeached, could the president be required to serve a sentence while still in office? If the president is impeached, does the double jeopardy clause prevent subsequent criminal prosecution on the same grounds? If the president can't be prosecuted while in office, what happens if the statute of limitations runs out before his term expires? If convicted while in office, could the president pardon himself?
    The issue isn't a new one – delegates discussed it (briefly) at the Constitutional Convention, although nothing about presidential immunity made it into the Constitution. Regarding presidential wrongdoing, the Constitution says only the following:

    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.

    But impeachment only removes the president from office. The Constitution makes clear that impeachment does not, on its own, prevent future prosecution:

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    What scholars argue about is whether this language, Constitutional history, or public policy requires impeachment of a president before prosecution. The idea that a sitting president must be impeached before prosecution is called the sequentialist position, advocated by law professor Akhil Reed Amar among others.

    http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mprezarrest.htm
    "Distrust and caution are the parents of security."
    Benjamin Franklin

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member tencz57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,425
    I don't care about the law . Lets just get Dubya and his thugs the hell out of the beltway and straight into jail . Let them be attrested and No changes bought fore (one of bushs favorites) and No attorney till we feel it's time . 2 years or 50 years , our choice . He made the law . The CHC can be jailed in a prison South of the Border . A few super Elites can bite that bullet also .
    I want my America back . The People need a little sercurity in there lives and with jobs . To hell with Globalization for the few . Lets Drill off the coast and in Anwar , set an Energy policy.
    Tom Tancerdo head of HLS .
    All while Bush and his corrupt buddies on both sides of the border watch from their cells. And we give them only Newspapers to read . With every other page cut out . Same as they Censored us ,we do to them as they wait for trial .
    McAmnesty , That Idiot we ride out of town on a old Titan missle (Dr.Strangelove)
    The Clintons , all 3 of them . Export to China . We'll see how popular they are with No U.S Secrets to sell.
    The leaders (cough cough) of both the house and senate are send to guard the border.
    Scooter Libby = Do Not Pass Go
    Ramos & Compean Released asap , record cleared . Choice back to work or sue Bush and Cheney .
    Common Sense replaces PC and sends the hate mongers packing ,fast.

    Don't Screw with America . Were Freindly decent people and we are sorry World for last 3 presidents .
    BTW World . No more goverment hand outs for rich farmers. Grow and sell or go bust . The World needs to eat !!
    Nam vet 1967/1970 Skull & Bones can KMA .Bless our Brothers that gave their all ..It also gives me the right to Vote for Chuck Baldwin 2008 POTUS . NOW or never*
    *

  5. #5
    Senior Member cvangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,450
    Then we get Pelosi. What's the point? He's out in January anyway. I'd be all for it if we can try all the traitors in Congress too! Follow the trail of ___ rolling downhill to get them all and I'm with ya!

  6. #6
    Senior Member koobster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,699
    AMEN to all the ABOVE but, along with polisky she goes to.
    She wants laws broken also. But, what is we to do about ti, and how do we get it DONE.
    Sometimes I fill as if our hands are tied.
    Government does what they want when they want.
    They dont give a DAM about the AMERICAN people.
    They will say anything and do anything to get YOUR VOTE and get their little butts into the white house. Then they have the POWER. If mcshames gets into the house we are going to be domed. I can not stand mcshames.
    hiltery will also distory the usa, by giving illegals, visas and everything else they want like what is happening now. obambambam, will completely well, same story. I dont TRUST anyone of them, at all.
    Some times I fill like whats the use?? We are all screwed one way or another. n But, i am writing in Baldwin, or robert Barr. Maybe mickey mouse. Some cheer me up. ugh....
    Proud to be an AMERICAN

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •