HonkToImpeach

Honk To Impeach!

Bob Fertik — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:44:16 -0400

According to the polls, a majority of Americans support the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. But few Americans know there is a nationwide grassroots impeachment movement because the Corporate Media refuses to report on our efforts on orders from Karl Rove.

So what can we do about it? How about making some old-fashioned noise - and breaking new ground in high-tech grassroots organizing! HonkToImpeach is simple:

We'll hit busy intersections with signs asking cars to Honk To Impeach Bush - that's the old-fashioned noise-making part
We'll also hold signs saying PASSENGERS: TEXT "IMPEACH" to 30644 - that's the new high-tech grassroots organizing, which will allow us to "sign up" all the honkers via text messaging for future organizing
We'll post photos and videos of our actions to inspire more activism here:
http://www.impeachspace.com

Honk To Impeach - Nuts And Bolts

Bob Fertik — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:51:07 -0400

Here are the nuts and bolts for organizers:

Pick a strategic location that gets a lot of cars and has a stop light - if possible, right in front of your Representative's District Office or a local TV station or newspaper
Pick a time that works for you and a friend or two
Post the time/place on our events calendar coded "Honk To Impeach"
Send the link to your local friends and ask them post a comment if they can join you. Also ask them to send it to their local friends.
Bring our two handwritten signs (or posterboard and markers to make signs)
1. Honk to Impeach Bush!
2. TEXT "IMPEACH" to 30644
Bring a camera (or video camera) to record your activities
You need two signs at each corner - if you have extra people and signs you can cover more than one corner
Have fun!!

If you're not an organizer but want to participate, visit our events page and type in your zip code to find a HonkToImpeach event near you. Then post a comment telling the organizer you'll be there.

Safety is crucial and we must not cause any accidents involving cars or pedestrians.

Break sunscreen and hats
Don't bring children or pets - they are too precious, as well as unpredictable and distracting
Only wave your signs at cars that are stopped at a red light - don't distract drivers who are moving - turn your signs away from moving cars - turn your signs away when the red light turns green
If a pro-Bush driver curses at you, don't get angry - just smile and wave or move away
If the police question you, tell them you're exercising your First Amendment right of free expression. If they tell you you're creating a disturbance in that location, ask them where you can stand that will not create a disturbance. You have a right to hold signs in public places so find a local lawyer who is familiar with local ordinances and ask if they will advise you for free (pro bono) if you get hassled by local police

After you're done:

Thank everyone who came and ask them if they would do it again, what date/time works best, and what changes to make
Collect everyone's email address for future events
Upload your photos to your favorite photo site like Flickr.com and upload your videos to Youtube.com
Create a new forum topic on Democrats.com to share your experience and link to your photos and videos: http://www.democrats.com/node/add/forum
Forum: Impeachment - Activism
Topic: HonkToImpeach
Content Relevance: Congressional District
Email the forum link to everyone who came or wanted to come
Schedule your next outing at http://democrats.com/events

Honk to Impeach

Adam M. — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:36:38 -0400

I was wondering if there is any interest amongst residents of Kennebunk, or nearby towns to organize a "Honk-to-Impeach" event, or some kind of comparable function, especially in light of Congressman Kucinich's recent filing of articles of impeachment against President Bush.

If so, write to me at adammarletta@yahoo.com and let me know. If we do it, and it's a success, perhaps we could make it a regular event.

Anyone who is interested, write to me.

Impeachment Demonstrations at Rep. Zoe Lofgren's San Jose, CA office every Friday 3p-6p/Join us

mkmusic — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:19:33 -0400

We have been demonstrating in front of Zoe Lofgren's office every Friday since November. Zoe is on the House Judiciary Committee. Join us with your own Impeachment signs or use ours. Her office is located at 635 N. First St., San Jose, CA. We're there from 3p - 6p.

Merriam Kathaleen

Silicon Valley Impeachment Coalition

408-482-6032

svimpeach.org

HonktoImpeach

oyster10 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:42:39 -0400

Hi everyone! Does Greene County, Missouri have a HonktoImpeach organized? I'll save back a little gas in case we do!

Honk to Impeach

dclark_democrat — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:23:48 -0400

Let's get together SF peninsula

Impeachment Happening in Congress Right Now!

davidswanson — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:27:57 -0400

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is on the floor of the House of Representatives right now introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

Yes, 35. He'll be reading for a while.

Watch C-Span Now!

If you don't have cable, go to a bar and tell them to put it on C-Span 1!

Or watch at the Video/Audio tab at
http://c-span.org

Take your laptop outside and turn the volume up!

More details coming later tonight!

Action in the House coming later this week!

Good websites to watch for updates and actions:
http://kucinich.us

http://democrats.com

http://afterdowningstreet.org

Let Justice roll down like waters in a mighty stream . . .

There's going to be at least one article of impeachment that interests you and perhaps even mentions you. Watch for updates.

Media Avoids Torture while Bloggers Avoid Impeachment

Bob Fertik — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:12:18 -0400

Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture - Sign the Petition!

On Friday, George Bush told ABC he personally approved of the approval of torture by Dick Cheney and his top cabinet officials.

"Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC New s White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And, yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."...

Bush said the ABC report about the Principals' involvement was not so "startling."

Well perhaps Bush didn't find it startling, but torture happens to be both a U.S. felony and an international war crime subject to the death penalty.

It may also be the reason for the last-minute decision by the Pope to refuse to attend the long-planned state dinner for him at the White House.

So what was the reaction of the Corporate Media to Bush's admission of war crimes? Crickets.

thus far at least, no one seems to give a damn. As of 9AM, the NYT published no news of Bush's admission. The WaPo placed a story on A3 (stating that they had already reported this, even though they hadn't reported this). ABC, the outlet that got the damn scoop, places the story fourth on its list of stories, behind Obama and Indiana and Hillary telling Bill to "butt out," with the main picture on the front page cycling through such critical stories as a dog who invited himself to his owner's funeral. Oh--and do you think maybe there's a connection between the stories of teens beating each other and the President, approving of torture?

This is an exclusive with the President who, after lying about torture for four years, just admitted that he knew and approved of the torture! And yet you place it there among the cute puppy stories?

Marcy can't get her head around the fact the Corporate Media doesn't give a crap that our President is a war criminal. But the Corporate Media was fully complicit in the pre-war lies. That's why they were fully complicit in the post-war coverup of those lies by refusing to report on the Downing Street Memos, which is why we had to create AfterDowningStreet.org.

They were also fully complicit in the original sin of the Bush Administration - the stolen election in Florida and the lawless appointment of Bush by five of his father's cronies on the Supreme Court.

But for me, the key question of the moment is: where are the progressive bloggers.

Booman framed the question:

If you were strategizing a blogswarm to get Congress, the press, and the administration to do something, what would you suggest we focus on? Should we focus on the lack of media coverage? Should we focus on getting a special prosecutor? Should we focus on getting the administration to comply with requests for documents and testimony from congressional committees?

But he left out the only Constitutional remedy for Presidential crimes: impeachment. Why would he, when he publicly supports impeachment?

Tristero, who also supports impeachment, won't even embrace Booman's proposed solutions, but prefers that we educate ourselves:

My answer is none of the above, but we should support all these efforts. Instead I think bloggers should focus on the essential issue and constantly remind our readers what it is:

There is no longer the shadow of a doubt that the torture of prisoners was planned at the highest levels of the US government with the explicit knowledge and approval of the president. How do we know this? Bush himself admitted it.

What we also need to do is to remind people exactly what it means to torture, and that torture is profoundly immoral. Furthermore we should make it clear that among the numerous reasons that torture is profoundly immoral is that torture makes societies who torture less safe.

That's it? All bloggers can do is "remind" people that torture is wrong?

This is absurd. We've come to a historic moment where every American - especially bloggers - must take a stand.

Either you're for torture or you're against it. And if you're against it, you must support the only Constitutional remedy: impeachment.

It's simply idiotic to call for a Special Prosecutor, as the ACLU did. A Special Prosecutor can't prosecute a President, only send a report to Congress (see the Starr Report if you've forgotten). We don't need a Starr Report when the President has publicly admitted to approving war crimes! (Call ACLU president Anthony Romero at 212-549-2500 or email him to support impeachment, not a useless Special Prosecutor.)

It's no excuse to say, "we can't impeach Bush because President Cheney would be worse." We know that Cheney directly approved torture, so they must be impeached together. If they were convicted by the Senate (or resigned to avoid impeachment), Speaker Pelosi would become President, as prescribed by the Constitution.

It's no excuse to say, "we don't have the votes to impeach Bush and Cheney." Democrats didn't have the votes to impeach Nixon when they started, but when the House Judiciary Committee reluctantly adopted Articles of Impeachment, Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.

Nor is it an excuse to say, "we don't have time to impeach Bush and Cheney." Bush admitted both his own and Cheney's guilt, and Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet are witnesses. There's no need for impeachment hearings - an impeachment resolution based on Bush's confession could go straight to the floor for a vote, just as they did on 11/6/07 when Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 799, Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney.

And finally, it is utterly immoral for bloggers to say, "we shouldn't impeach Bush and Cheney because it would hurt the chances of electing a Democrat in November." Simply stated, politics should never come before torture. (Of course, as John Nichols convincingly argued in The Genius of Impeachment, impeachment has always helped the impeaching party in the next Presidential election - not that that should matter.)

Dr. Martin Luther King famously said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam."

Thanks to Bush's admission that he approved torture, that time has come for us in relation to impeachment. To paraphrase George Bush: you're either with us, or you're with the torturers. Bloggers, which side are you on?

Update 1: The Pentagon Post claims it covered the story in January 2005, but they're lying.

Nixon, Cheney, and Le Deluge

davidswanson — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:59:28 -0500

By David Swanson

Congressman Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney now has more cosponsors signed onto it than any resolution to impeach President Richard Nixon ever had. But separate resolutions to impeach Nixon, some with a handful of cosponsors, many with no cosponsors at all, were filed by the dozens. Today, Kucinich's resolution stands alone.

"Back in 1973," Barbara Ellis wrote in a recent paper that has inspired a new strategy among advocates of impeachment, "nearly 90 Democratic House members banded together to hopper separate bills to impeach Nixon. Two-thirds of them were to investigate whether Nixon's deeds rose to the level of Constitutional standards for impeachment; the other third were plain-vanilla articles of impeachment. In October alone, a flood of 40 bills were filed in that Democratic-controlled House."

Today there are 50 or 60 members of Congress who openly or secretly support impeachment or impeachment hearings for Cheney. There are 26 who have signed onto actual articles of impeachment (Kucinich's resolution), several others who have signed onto a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers urging impeachment hearings, several others who have made public comments suggesting they favor the hearings, and several more who signed on during the last Congress to Conyers' resolution to create a "preliminary impeachment investigation." Conyers has not reintroduced that bill.

A group of citizen activists from around the country has been meeting with members of Congress and their staffers to argue a case for recreating what they are calling the Nixon flooding plan. If, they argue, just the 30 or 40 members who are currently pushing for Cheney's impeachment were to file their own resolutions, the impact would be far greater than simply adding more names to Kucinich's bill or to a Dear Colleague letter. All that is needed, in other words, to move impeachment forward in the House might be for those who already claim to support it to put their printers where their mouths are and crank out a couple of dozen new bills.

In the Nixonian example, many of the bills introduced were very short and simple, and many were nearly identical to each other. Others picked out a few favorites from the list of available abuses by that president. In the case of Dick Cheney (or George Bush, for that matter), Congress Members could turn to the recent example of Congressman Jay Inslee's short and simple resolution to open an impeachment hearing on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (Thirty-two members got behind that bill, and surely more would have signed on had Gonzales not resigned. Now, Gonzales' replacement is repeating his crimes and abuses of power, but impeaching Mukasey would just highlight the fact that Bush and Cheney are giving the orders and that the Senate approved a clone of Gonzales as his replacement.) Beyond Gonzales-style resolutions that simply create hearings, pro-Constitution congress members could pick from a select menu of those abuses in which (unlike most of the Bush-Cheney abuses) Congress has not been complicit. These include rewriting laws with signing statements and proceeding to violate numerous statutes, refusals to turn over information, misleading Congress, refusals to comply with subpoenas, ordering former staffers not to comply with subpoenas, refusals to enforce contempt citations, commuting the sentence of a former top staffer who obstructed an investigation that involved Cheney and Bush, exposure of an undercover agent as punishment for a whistleblower, running a secret energy task force in violation of open-government laws, profiting through no-bid contracts to a war profiteer, election fraud, and the criminally negligent response to Hurricane Katrina.

Barbara Ellis, the author of the paper excerpted above, is an impeachment activist in Oregon and a member of a group called the National Coalition of We the People. Three members of this group, Michael Greenman from Ohio, Marcia Meyers from Oregon, and Carl McCargo from Massachusetts, traveled to Washington, D.C., last week and met with 32 congressional offices, in some cases with members and in others with staff. They intentionally included among those they spoke with some of the leaders of the original Nixon Flooding Plan who are still in Congress: Pete Stark (CA-8), John Conyers (MI-1), William Lacy Clay (MO-1), David Obey (WI-7), and Charles Rangel (NY-19).

They brought along a packet of information that included Ellis's paper:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/floodwhitepaper.pdf

A partial list of the bills introduced against Nixon:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/floodappendices.pdf

Arguments in favor of this approach:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/floodwhy.pdf

And a cover letter:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/floodcoverletter.pdf

The group reported on their congressional visits: "The Nixon Flooding Plan was met with high interest from all of our 32 Congressional contacts as a practical strategy for helping them to live up to that oath of office. Using our networking knowledge of and confidence in the millions of Americans passionate about impeachment, we promised those who take up the Nixon plan national recognition and support and offered sample investigation/impeachment bills for their convenience in drafting such a bill. One constant heard from House members and/or their key staffers was their message: 'We need to hear from our constituents' about trying that multiple-bill approach.

"So the main effort we're launching is a drive in the national impeachment movement for a "National Call for Impeachment Bills." We'll focus on the week of March 16 - 22 to flood House members with our support for either bills on investigations for impeachment or articles of impeachment.

"One message House members need to hear is that participants in that Nixon plan were re-elected in 1974 (five are still in the House). Only two participants were not re-elected, but not because of hoppering an impeachment bill against Nixon. Republican Paul McCloskey lost to a Democrat; and Bill Roy ran for Senate. Not only did the Democrats control the House in 1973-75 (242-192-1)), but they added nearly 50 more members (291-144) three months after Nixon resigned."

Congressman Kucinich has drafted over 50 articles of impeachment against Bush, and he should be encouraged to introduce those soon. But he and every member of Congress should be encouraged to introduce their own favorite resolution with regard to Cheney, even if it's simply a proposal to hold impeachment hearings.

The week of March 16-22 is a week when Congress Members are home in the districts. It's also the five-year point in the occupation of Iraq. A number of impeachment groups led by Code Pink have already designated the 18th a day for impeachment events. Why not plan now to pay a visit to your congress member's local office that week? More on what's happening that week can be found at http://resistinmarch.org

Here we are at Anna Eshoo's office -- Lot's of honking going on!

jzilliac — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:49:05 -0500