Here's a simple email form to fill out and it will be sent to your representatives. Of course, phone calls to your representatives have an even greater impact.

IMPEACH CHENEY EMAIL ACTION FORM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He may have just lost my vote!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Paul, I have come to appreciate your enthusiasm for ending American imperialism and restoring civil liberties. I love the fact that you have a simple message. Now I have a simple message for you: Vote to Impeach Cheney, or you lose my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul is a traitorous an ultra-right-wing KOOK.

The fact that so many support him proves once again that the electorate of this nation are simply daft, complicit, idiotic, selfish, stupid, casino-dwelling, limbaugh-worshiping cultist fanatical gun-toting warmongers. (Or maybe this is just defining the country of separatist, swaggering, idiotic TEXANS. Anyone choosing to live in that barren wasteland of marlborough-man throwbacks is just CRAZY. It’s no wonder the wackos end up in WACO!)

Paul may appear anti-war, but it's for all the wrong reasons.

Everything Paul stands for: Guns, rampant unchecked, unregulated private enterprise, the absurd and thoroughly disproved notion that the market polices itself, etc, are EXACTLY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY!

Ever since the cult of personal greed at the expense of everyone and everything else overtook moral scruples and altruistic civic duty, this nation has careened along this hideous, selfish roller-coaster of robber-baron-wannabe boom/bust greed-based corruption and graft, and each and every citizen co-conspirator in this ethical and moral mess is as guilty as the German civilians in their unanimous support of their whacked-out cultist kooks.

Ron Paul should go back to supporting his "Patriots" who bombed the Murrah Building: The right-wing-nut TRUE TERRORISTS, who are right here infesting the hills and hollers of DELIVERANCE that comprises the entire, vast, unbroken bible-belted toothless cultists making up the HUGE MAJORITY of this county.

If people wish to support an anti-establishment candidate, then Kucinich is the ONLY CHOICE. Dennis Kucinich has stoically legislated for the rule of law on our behalf, only to be mocked by liberals far and wide. Why he cares about this country of selfish, warmongering criminal citizen co-conspirators is beyond me. The citizenry of this nation have proven themselves by their nearly unanimous support for war for so many years (only changing recently), to be a society of selfish sociopaths who need to suffer the demise and decline they begat.

Bring on the depression, and let these idiots who pay for this crime with their taxes, suffer for their misdeeds.

Liberals, progressives, and others who do not support the Kucinich Cause, have only themselves to blame for the current mess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in political discussion particularly on a site that is, alledgedly, 'progressive'. That type of stereotyping would be more in keeping with Rush Limbaugh or some similiar entertainment AM radio show. What is next? Maybe "Frito the Bandito" or "Speedy Gonzales" referenced in a NAFTA discussion? Amazing. One article complains about "blackface" and "exclusive" countryclubs. And the next makes use of awful PuertoRican stereotypes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't depend on Ron Paul for much. He is a Republican party stalwart and will make no meaningful reforms. He is just a shill to keep the discourse on the right. He wants to keep the left's issues out of the national debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another right wingnut. I never trusted the guy. There's something smug and superior about his attitude. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not giving up on Ron Paul, even though I want to understand why he didn't vote for impeachment. More important to me though are the things he did vote for and support. And protecting the ever dwindling constitution is vital to the future of this country. For the guy spouting a lot of useless insults and crap. You obviously don't know what America is really supposed to be about. You should be living in what's called a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, your father the dictator, runs your life for your own protection and kills or tortures you if you don't agree(think secret prisons, secret spying, no habeus rights, national id, sound familiar?).
Take all that energy and put it toward some good research about the state this country is in. And then research the candidates(not the ones told to you by the corporate owned press) and then find an opinion that makes sense...
Who is a real American?
I love America. I love everything it is supposed to stand for. The freedom of an individual to pursue his own life and happiness without government interference. No king telling you who to worship and how to worship. No dictator forcing you to abide by his or her own desires. Nothing and no one to limit what you can accomplish and have in your life with your own sweat and tears. That is truly American. That is the essence of what the constitution was trying to protect.
Protecting ourselves
I believe this country should be protected. And I support the troops completely. I support them not fighting a war based on a lie for the benefit of making others rich. Every time there is a war there are those who get rich. And there are those who die. Protecting our country means building up our own country. Exporting more than importing. Not borrowing so much money.(Ever heard the saying" the borrower is slave to the lender"?).You want to id, x-ray, spy on, people. Then do it to the non Americans at the borders trying to get in. That is where you need to be extra protective and strict.
Instead they want to join the U.S. with Mexico and Canada to form a North American Union with one currency. Check that out! It's for real. And our soldiers, instead of being here at our borders are dying, divorcing, and losing their civil liberties here at home while fighting for democracy over there. Huh! You think I am crazy???
"the constitution is just a ---damn piece of paper"
Should that be the belief of someone that is running this country?
Do you know that it has been signed into law that in case of any type of emergency, the president will have dictatorial powers over all levels of government?
Do you know that your habeus corpus rights do not exist if you are decided to be an enemy combatant?
Did you know that your phones may have been tapped? Your library information can be given out without your permission or knowledge, your papers and effects can be searched and seized, federal prison conversation between attorney and client can be monitored.
There is a national id card coming soon.
Are these all American ideals and standards? These are the freedoms that our forefathers fought for and people died for?
He wants to call our troops home.Great! let them defend our borders as it should be.
He wants less government and more individual freedom. YES, YES, YES!! SOMEONE WHO FINALLY GETS WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO BE. People should be self sufficient! If you want the government to give you everything then you must give yourself to be owned by it.
But if you don't mind losing more lives, losing face around the world, losing the value of the dollar and crashing the economy, losing social security, the rest of our constitutional rights, then you go ahead and vote for whoever the corporate owned media tells you to. After all when we voted the democrats in to take a stand and change things, they did everything they promised they would right????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very good article and very good point. I support Paul, and I support impeachment of the whole Bush gang.

I think Paul made a strategic move. He voted to send the resolution to the Judiciary so it can proceed. It would have died on the house floor.

Now, impeachment is still alive, and there are actions we can take to move it forward.

AfterDownignStreet has a plan for activists to move this along:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28497

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe Dr. Paul is right - perhaps there is insufficient evidence to show Cheney's guilt. Maybe Cheney could say that he was as fooled as everyone else by the poor intelligence information. Perhaps he could get off with a defense like that.
Perhaps, unlike a government who put away Al Capone for tax evasion instead of the many murders he committed, Dr. Paul wishes Mr. Cheney to be impeached for that which he is truly guilty - his failure to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States. Of course Dr. Paul may have made a mistake, in which case, he will admit his mistake in due time.
Dr. Paul a kook? Sure he is, if you feel that liberty for the masses is crazy. Out of touch? Yes, he is out of touch with those who wish to spread empire throughout the world. Anachronistic? Dr. Paul is just as anachronistic as the Constitution . . . and I am perfectly happy to let those who feel that way live in the society they have created for themselves - just don't force me to live there with you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Author,
Would you please refrain from posting up these kind of articles based on nothing but false pretenses. Seriously, is Ron Paul the only person in congress that matters now? What about the 400 others who were voted in? Are you demanding to know why they voted the way they did? Or are you just trying to single out Paul because he is running for Prez?
As of now, Pauls voting record gauging back the last 10 years is basically crystal clean and he makes one single vote on something YOU disagree with (mind you, you do not know all the details of what is happening) and you are willing to throw it all away? Like you said in your own letter, please contact Paul's campaign before making up a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories on this and that. Ron Paul knows the constitution a hell of a lot better than you and I am standing right behind Paul on every decision he makes.
And from reading the vote list, Paul voted YES to bring the HR to the table for discussion. I honestly do not see the problem here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOAM CHOMSKY REBUTS AN ARGUMENT FOR RON PAUL
(Znet: Chomsky's response to this letter on Paul is in bold):

--Hello Mr. Chomsky.
I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is.
And I'm also assuming you have a general idea about his positions.

Here my summary of Mr. Paul's positions:

--He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts):

Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

- - He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government):

"Dismantling of big government" sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded -- like what we're now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,....? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

(LINK)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

-- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you've already mentioned. There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power -- itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

-- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

-- I really can't find differences between your positions and his.

There's a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn't themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being "broken" are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based -- the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we're at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

--So I have these questions:

--1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of "Libertarianism"?

There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion -- on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

--2) Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of "Libertarianism"?

That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

--3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate...and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

NO.

(LINK)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... of the federal reserve and what they are doing to our economy. He has put him on the spot and he is dominating cause he is so knowledgable about economics and markets and currency and that is what is destroying our economy right now..

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RON PAUL IS AN UNAPOLOGETIC HYPOCRITE!!

Paul’s vote to “Table” then “Committee” completely flies in the face of his prior positions on impeachment. His volatile vote to cancel Clinton for purely partisan purposes is a huge, rotting skeleton in Paul’s clammy closet.

Paul apparently claims the “evidence” was there for Clinton’s impeachment because Clinton, technically correctly claimed he “did not have” certain “relations with that woman”, and Paul proposes this was to have been considered irrefutable evidence of Clinton’s culpability?? Meanwhile this elusive moving target of treasonous mis-truths for mandating this killing in combat is just a comedy of CIA errors, or “bad information”? What a load of Beltway-Bullcrap!

If Paul was such a scion of scruples as he claims, he would have NOT voted to “table”, which was in effect a vote to kill, and not, as he now holds, a vote for further “investigation”.

Paul’s party-line play reveals he’s a preposterous political poser. While we’ve all seen him tell his “truth” about the Iraq War at the debates, we've now clearly seen him lie on the video tape!

Anyone supporting Paul at this point fails to see he's a "Patriots"-pandering proselytizer with bizarre, extremist, unbalanced and unreasonable concepts of private enterprise run completely amok, among Paul’s other piggish proposals and posturing.

There is a militaristic national criminal emergency afoot, and delaying action purely for partisan pandering as Paul has apparently done, is an impeachable crime in and of itself in my book, of which Paul is now irrefutably culpable.

If Paul plays politics while Cheney bombs Iran’s Nuke Labs causing an ecological and humanitarian disaster, then Paul is no compassionate creature of civic conscience, rather he’s a criminal enabeler of the worst kind for unfairly monkey-wrenching the judicial process when he needed to have been fully on board.

Sometimes the extremist far-right lunatic-fringe reaches so far around the back side of capitalism they end up in the but-crack of the corporatocracy and it’s inevitably requisite cronyism and collusion. What’s supposed to be 'right' seems 'left' for a minute, but for all the 'wrong' reasons. Elect Paul and you’ll likely get a huge red swath of selfish, bible-belted, gun-toting, money-making militias spanning the heartland, while any healthy humanism holes up in some hovel on Manhattan’s upper-left side.

Don't be fooled! Anyone looking for an expert scholarly republican view on impeachment, which happens to ironically come directly from behind the picket fence of the Ron Paul Compound, should watch the latest interview with Bruce Fein. This guy’s a true pro, he got Clinton Impeached over a misplaced cigar—Listen to what he says! (which Paul clearly didn’t do).

Paul's political purpose to peace is purely to divide the republican mega-church of militant, militaristic, cold, anti-compassionate, cultist lemmings into more manageable mouthfuls for the opposition to masticate, as Nader once unfortunately did for the Dems.

(Supporting links next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They have said Tabling the issue is just what was needed. It is in process now

Here's What Ron Paul has to say as to why he voted to table the issue.
http://dailypaul.com/node/6857

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's in review now. This article is not true.

Go to http://VoteToImpeach.org to step up and do your part to make it happen. Let's get moving. Do something.

It's a sad time when the Washington Post is giving more fair coverage than AlterNet http://tinyurl.com/37vby4

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]