Impeach Vice President Richard B. Cheney!
Text of fax broadcast:
IMPEACH VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY! (TO BE HANDED TO HON. ROBERT WEXLER THIS EVENING.)
NEW YORK, NEW YORK * 3 MARCH 2008 Citizen of the USA Stephen M. St. John addresses the international community in Washington and here in New York City, members of the US Congress as well as other organizations and individuals, public and private, and calls for the impeachment of Vice President Richard B. Cheney for aggravated dereliction of duty resulting in death and destruction at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.
Specifically, Vice President Cheney assumed operational control of our nation's defenses but failed to employ Washington area anti-aircraft missiles to stop the approaching aerial vehicle that, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, ultimately hit the Pentagon. Cheney failed to use these missiles at a time (approximately 9:15 - 9:30 AM) when it was already apparent from the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City that NORAD had somehow been compromised during its ongoing multiple wargame exercises. Moreover, Cheney failed to resort to available anti-aircraft missiles when he knew, or should have known, that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's changes to NORAD hijack intercept procedures (effective 1 June 2001) were very likely to retard NORAD's response on 9/11.
That Cheney had hands on operational control of our nation's defenses in the quarter hour before the Pentagon attack is made manifest by the eyewitness testimony of then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who joined Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center in the basement of the White House at around 9:15 AM. Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, which is readily available on the Internet at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y, was never put under proper scrutiny by his examiner Lee Hamilton or anyone else and therefore important findings and conclusions which could have been made were studiously avoided by 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow in his mythmaking exercise known as the 9/11 Commission Report.
The combined actions and non-actions of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Zelikow conduced to clandestine fulfillment of President Bush's directive to find a way to attack Iraq, which was made at his very first cabinet meeting in February 2001, and later revealed in January 2004 by eyewitness whistle-blower Paul O'Neill.
A copy of this call for impeachment will be handed to Congressman Robert Wexler (USHR FL19) this evening in New York.
A copy of this call for impeachment with clickable links may be found at http://www.show-the-house.com under "Impeach Vice President Cheney!"
Stephen M. St. John
Post Office Box 449
Rockefeller Center
New York, New York 10185
Tel/Fax: 212 534 5024
Mobile: 917 519 2905
email: metatron.metatron@verizon.net & stephen@show-the-house.com
A truly great man, SSJ, who continues in a responsible and profound way to apply pressure in all the correct ways to achieve sanity, soundness and justice-- but how will wexler respond to this? I think we can all make a fairly educated guess, &C.
in fact, it should have been done long ago, but, it's not gonna happen folks.
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house,
his possessions are safe." Luke 11:21
Truth Seeker---As much as I would like to see darth cheney strung up like his ex--ally saddam, he will not go anywhere..the congress, justice dept...etc..are all treasonous and accomplices..where is the MSm on this?? still cowering from operation mockingbird..
votenader.org
Kucinich's impeachment charges against Cheney [.pdf] were much more comprehensive than this. He laid it all out on the table in a professionally drafted way with a huge list of supporting documents for each article of impeachment as evidence in support of his charges.
Cheney's going nowhere.
"This is a call for the impeachment of Vice President Richard B. Cheney, to be delivered by hand to the Honorable Congressman Robert Wexler (USHR FL19) this evening, 3 March 2008, on the island of Manhattan in New York City. This call for impeachment of Cheney is based on much narrower grounds than those thus far put forward so courageously and honorably by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler. Their appeals to fellow members in the US Congress are unfortunately curtailed by an institutional bias that nurtured a 13 year lie about WMDs in Iraq with a $93 million allocation in 1997 to undermine the government of Iraq. Lovers of lies are not apt to judge fellow liars, especially when they nurse the same hostilities. They are so enmeshed in their web of deceit that they simply lack objectivity sufficient for good judgment. On the other hand, this call for impeachment focuses on a specific individual for a specific failure to act to defend the nation's capital on 11 September 2001. Under the circumstances, partisan resistance is less likely. The only fear will be for what further leads turn up in the discovery process. There are those who are afraid of the truth, and there are those who crave the healing qualities of the light of truth. Let's see how they divide on this article of impeachment."
http://www.show-the-house.com/id8.html
Yeah, now let's wantonly and outrageously wax critical of SSJ, shall we?
.. give me a break.
I didn't criticise Stephen, I don't know where you got that from. I simply pointed out that much greater efforts to impeach Cheney have come and gone to no avail. It's just a matter of fact.
Cheney committed many more impeachable offenses than just his negligence on 9/11/2001. Click on the links I provided and have a look before you go all cultish on me again.
So Stephen agrees with me, and considers Kucinich to be 'courageous' and 'honorable', but you're all "Kucinich? Gimme a break.."
No, you're right.. misread you at first and reacted in my usual offensive defensive way. Yeah, kucinich.. sheesh.. part of the usual worthless shell game pretty much, in my opinion..
Oh, and my apologies therefore. I did read Kucinich's document when it first came out, and it was very good, oc, as it would needs be in order to present it before congress I suppose..
CoZ: "Cheney's going nowhere.."
I agree in the context in which you stated that, CoZ-- but we all know precisely where he's going (and where he's a'ready at, in fact) when it comes down to 't, &c.
What is your problem? If others want to be critical of SSJ, they are free to do so, as are you to sing his praises, as you so often do.
Is it a problem to leap to the defense of my friends against a perceived insult and/ or threat? It is when my perceptions are askew, and I do so rashly, wrongly and over-hastily. (see above).
And what's YOUR problem 'sullivan'?
CoZ: you've been very cool, and I appreciate your understanding and patience, &c.
Sullivan: you can criticize me (that's easy enough) or anybody else you want to to your heart's content.. and so can I, obviously. In fact, I've criticized somebody or other of your friends in the past, which is why felt obliged to pounce on me. David Duke, perhaps, or Curtis Maynard..
I SUSPECT, that is, that that's the cause.. but, if true, and if the person or persons I criticised or attacked happen to have been coz or cmm, or anybody else who frequents this forum, please be so kind as to accept my humble and sincere apology, just as I hope they do.. I was in the wrong, I'm sure, in those instances.. g'day.
What else? A song-- by Donal Lunny and Friends, &C.
There is no problem, except that there was no insult or threat.
If you perceive any critique to be an insult or threat, then that's your problem.
Precisely.
Haven't you guessed that already? Anyone who frequents this site is free to critique any post here, without fear of being set upon. For what it is worth, while I find the content of St. John's work to be fine, I don't like the presentation or the style. It jars with me. I am free to hold that opinion, just as you are free to sing his praises.
Critique is not necessarily a bad thing. You haven't criticised any of my 'friends' in the past, but I despair when I see a discussion forum like this disintegrating into spats between pro and anti camps, such as has happened here before in the DBS threads.
And what on earth are the quotes around my name for? Effect? ;)
BTW, thanks for the song by Donal Lunny, a fellow countryman and one of my favourite musicians.
I know we'd both agree (and me 1000x more strongly than you would)-- as your posts in this thread make abundantly clear-- that the problem with presentation is my own. And so, best wishes, and so farewell.
Not to worry - this has brought him back to life before:
Don't take it too badly -
He'll probably reincarnate as SoFarewelll02.
gad demn-- you fools have some serious problems. go fek yoursELVES.
In my opinion, this blog is overrun with zids posing as concerned goyim, &C. See, quagmire and gilligan jump headlong into an imaginary fray to assail me unnecessarily, but if I ever encounter 'em in real life they'll be jumping in another altogether different direction, I do assure them.
So you're Irish, Sullivan. I like the Irish; they're a very down-to-earth, real, no fucking around bunch with a good sense of humor, and they know all about tyranny and the spirit of resistance, especially the Northerners. The land-grabbing English aren't all that different to Israeli Zionists, come to think of it. We could call it 'British Zionism'.
Nonesuch, your apology is accepted. Cheers, man.
But you really do need to stop calling people 'Zionists' arbitrarily, just because you feel threatened. It's disingenuous and not much different to the Zionist 'antisemite!' canard.
Thanks, sir, for providing me with no small solace, at least, to counter the sense of folly I feel for ever undertaking to contribute here to begin with-- and, please, continue to keep up your good works. I can't even communicate well at present with the house cat. Time for an extended hiatus and retooling of my mental and spiritual faculties and physical well-being. Vale.
A great going away gift for a joisey tough guy
Don't do that! I like to DRINK my morning coffee, not spew it out my nose in a fit of mirth.
You are not meant to. THEY are meant to communicate with YOU, at their whim.
Yes, I am, but I spent most of my life living and working around continental Europe, a good part of which was spent in European Russia. I returned here a few years ago to find the place had changed beyond recognition and not for the better, I might add.
We'll have a chance to spot tyranny and show some resistance very soon now, when the utterly diabolical Lisbon Treaty is but to a referendum here (ratification requires a constitutional referendum here). Then we will see how much of that awareness to tyranny and feisty spirit of resistance has survived into the era of the "Celtic Tiger".
At least you get a referendum, but judging by what this guy has to say, the average citizen won't know what the hell they're voting for.
I understand that the Lisbon Treaty is a series of amendments to existing EU treaties, but what exactly does it mean for Ireland? You're already an EU member state. Does it further consolidate Ireland's membership obligations, or rope olde Oirland into a mutual defense agreement? As an Australian, I know fuck all about it. Could you briefly summarise what it's all about? I've had a quick look into it just now but it'd take me hours to get my head around it.
Cheers.
Isn't the Lisbon Treaty the same agenda as the EU Constitution that they couldn't get passed before?
It seems like a bad deal for Ireland if it ropes Irish forces into the NATO yoke. That would make Ireland worse off than when her sons were conscripted to fight the Crowns wars of conquest.
Ireland fought too hard for her independence to hand it over to an even bigger oppressor, the NATO machine.
02/03/08
I Want a Referendum announces results of constituency referendum campaign
See pictures from the announcement here:
- 150,000 people turn out to vote across just ten constituencies
- Turnout higher than in local elections
- Higher proportion voted for a referendum than voted for the sitting MPs
- 88% voted for a referendum
I Want a Referendum today announced the results of ten referendums which have been running in ten marginal constituencies. The referendums have been carried out for IWR by Electoral Reform Services - a leading firm of independent election scrutineers recognised by the United Nations, the British Government, and used by all the three main parties for their internal elections.
Despite several of the sitting MPs leafleting constituents telling them not to vote, the referendums have led to an unprecedented response from voters.
Key results:
* Stunningly, 152,520 people voted across just ten parliamentary constituencies. Of these 133,251 voted for a referendum.
* Even though the poll was unofficial, the 36.2% turnout means that a higher proportion of people voted in these unofficial referendums than in real elections in their local area. The average turnout for local elections (when not held with general elections) since 1996 is 35.4%. The average turnout in referendums on directly elected mayors - including in London - is 30.1%.
* This is the highest ever turnout in such an unofficial ballot.
* Voters were asked two questions:
Should the hold a national referendum on the EU's Treaty?
88% voted yes and 12% voted no. Less than 1% did not answer.
Should the approve the EU's Treaty?
89% voted against the Treaty and 8% voted in favour. 3% did not answer.
* In eight of the ten seats a greater proportion of people voted for a referendum than voted for the sitting MP. On average the sitting MPs won 27.5% of the available vote. But of those balloted in this campaign, 31.2% voted for a national referendum.
A full table of the results in detail is available at:
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/finalresults.pdf
For remainder of article and further information, see source
Writing in The Independent, M. Giscard D'Estaing said: "The proposed institutional reforms, the only ones which mattered to the drafting convention, are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties."
M. Giscard d'Estaing said: "In the Treaty of Lisbon, the tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed. Admittedly, the box itself is an old model, which you have to rummage through in order to find what you are looking for."
M. Giscard d'Estaing said references to the constitution had been removed "above all to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary".
Source
As expected, most Members of Parliament ignored the fact that 88% of the public wanted a referendum on the latest lurch toward a European super-state.
No EU referendum: MPs vote to deny the people a voice on Lisbon treaty
The British people were finally denied a say on the EU constitution last night after a momentous day in the Commons.
MPs voted against holding a referendum on the biggest shift of power to Brussels for at least a decade.
This was despite pledges from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats that voters would have the chance to decide the issue.
A Tory amendment calling for a referendum was defeated by 311 votes to 248 - a Government majority of 63
The furious parliamentary debate on Europe plunged Nick Clegg's LibDem leadership into crisis as 13 rebels - a fifth of his entire tally of MPs - joined the Tories in calling for a national vote.
Mr Clegg, who had ordered his MPs to abstain from voting, helped rescue Gordon Brown from defeat in two crucial votes on the Lisbon Treaty.
A Tory amendment calling for a referendum was defeated by 311 votes to 248, a Government majority of 63.
Some 29 Labour MPs also rebelled against the Prime Minister.
Yesterday's Commons defeat means a vote in the House of Lords - where the Government could be defeated by Tories and crossbenchers - will be the last chance for campaigners.
That vote is due later this year.
Yesterday's result will anger the public after 88 per cent of voters in mini-polls last weekend demanded a say.
The Lisbon Treaty will see the creation of a permanent EU president, foreign minister and diplomatic service and surrenders nearly 50 national vetoes to Brussels.
All three main parties made manifesto pledges in 2005 to hold a referendum on the EU constitution - now the revamped Lisbon Treaty.
Yesterday David Cameron taunted the Prime Minister that he was afraid of holding a national vote on the treaty because he knew it would be lost.
The Tory leader told Mr Brown at Prime Minister's Questions: "All of us in this House promised a referendum. We have the courage of our convictions - you have lost your courage and that lot (the Liberal Democrats) have lost their convictions."
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "The unavoidable implication is that politicians are not trustworthy, that Parliament does not see itself as accountable and votes do not necessarily matter.
"All attempts to wriggle out of that commitment will only be seen, and will only be, the weasel words with which a solemn promise is deliberately and calculatingly broken."
Even pro-European former Chancellor Ken Clarke questioned the Government's position.
"Will you stop all this nonsense about it being different from the constitution, because it is plainly the same in substance, and explain why it is better not to have a referendum but have it decided in parliament," he said.
Mr Brown accused the Conservatives of heading towards "the margins" of Europe by failing to support the Lisbon Treaty.
He insisted that the change would not create a "United States of Europe".
Mr Clegg had argued for an "in or out of Europe" referendum, which failed to even get a vote, leading to questions over his judgment.
The LibDem leader imposed a threeline whip on all 63 LibDem MPs to abstain from a vote calling for a referendum.
But the party's justice spokesman David Heath, countryside spokesman Tim Farron and Scotland and Northern Ireland spokesman Alistair Carmichael said they had promised their constituents a national vote.
They resigned their frontbench posts and voted with the Tories.
The drama left Mr Clegg, his party's third leader in two years, facing a difficult spring conference in Liverpool this weekend.
One LibDem MP said the split was a "train crash waiting to happen".
Insiders claimed Mr Clegg's hands were tied because the decision to abstain had been inherited from his predecessor, Sir Menzies Campbell.
Mr Carmichael said: "The decision that I have reached, and it has not been in any way, shape or form an easy one, is that I could not in all honesty retreat from the commitment I gave."
Mr Farron and Mr Heath have marginal constituencies which risk being targeted by referendum campaigners at the next election.
Junior frontbenchers who defied Mr Clegg were not forced to resign but would be disciplined, officials said.
Countryside spokesman Mr Farron, a former parliamentary aide to Sir Menzies Campbell when he was leader, said: "I personally have made an undertaking to my constituents that when this issue came to the Commons I would vote for a referendum.
"I shall do so and I'll face the consequences. It's a difficult situation."
Another rebel, junior culture spokesman Richard Younger-Ross, who did not resign, said: "My concern is and always has been the lack of democratic accountability and centralising nature of the EU."
LibDem rebel Mike Hancock, a backbencher who represents Portsmouth South, described the party's position as "a mess".
He said that while Mr Clegg retained his support, the leader had blundered by not offering his MPs a free vote.
A senior LibDem MP criticised Mr Clegg for handling the issue "badly at best, incompetently at worst".
But he insisted it would not jeopardise Mr Clegg's job, saying it simply reflected his "inexperience".
However he warned: "Lessons need to be learned, and quickly."
Another well-placed insider said the leader had failed to realise that LibDem MPs were not as sold on the European ideal as the party's peers and MEPs.
A second vote, tabled by Labour MP Ian Davidson, called for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but would also give the Prime Minister the option of adding a second question - which could be on whether the UK should leave the EU.
It was defeated by the Government 311 votes to 247, a majority of 64.
Derek Scott, chairman of the I Want a Referendum campaign, said: "Labour MPs who voted with their conscience and against the Government deserve congratulations, as do the Liberal Democrats who kept their promise.
"Those MPs who voted to deny their constituents a say should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
"The Government has lost the argument, even if it won the Commons vote.
"But this issue is not just going to go away."
Source