[fight_truth_decay]

During wartime? ..the Democrats are starting this action..we know how Low the stock market can go but how Low can a Democrat really go?

[smorgle]

"In 1999, the Republican Congress impeached President Bill Clinton after a $60 million investigation by Republican Special Prosecutor Ken Starr found no crimes by President Clinton - except consensual sex. This was a crime against Democracy."

You said it! All those crimes and Starr said he only found one. Totally unfair. Those other crimes had rights too, you know.

[Bandolier]

The snotwads still can't give up on the fact that their party failed to stack the deck as well as they thought they had.

Gotta' be a bitch to go robbing and stealing, and come up empty handed. Shoulda' had the dead folks vote more often.

How are they gonna' impeach President Bush? What did he do besides run for office, and win court decisions?

How are they gonna' impeach Vice-President Cheney? What did he do besides run for office, and win court decisions?

How are they gonna' impeach the Republican Congress members? They weren't even involved.

Impeach the SCOTUS judges (even though it was 7 not 5)? I don't think so. The constitution treats us all equally under the law. A vote for federal office in Florida cannot carry more weight than my vote for federal office; even if the Bingo geeks accidentally voted for Buchanan.

Democrats.com needs to get a purity test kit; someone is mixing their dope with Black Flag.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET

...HILLARY RODHAM -&- BILL CLINTON =

...The Enemy Within working in partnership with America's Terrorist Enemies ever since the Turbulent 1960's ..that they themselves made Turbulent.

NEVER FORGET

[reg45]

Q: Why do Democrats support gun confiscation?

A: Because they know that when the second American revolution comes, they will be the Redcoats.

[reg45]

The Democrats have been chug-a-lugging the bong water ever since 08-Nov-2000.

[The Wizard]

these folks have the best dope I have ever heard of.....I hope they ain't driving

[Luis Gonzalez]

BUMP!

This is going to be fun.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Announced plans to invade Iraq with 250,000 troops, without Congressional authorization or debate."

It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.

The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.

It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

The next Holy Grail for Democrats, now that they've equated low taxes with a bad economy, is to make tax cuts an impeachable offense.

They'll probably convince the half of the population that doesn't pay taxes that this is a good idea.

[Mo1]

Let them try a stunt like that and they will kill their party off for sure

[F16Fighter]

The biggest threat to the Republic and freedom in America is NOT the Muslims, Communists, or Red Chinese....

It is without question the Democratic Party.

[EternalVigilance]

Of course the above article reads like the rantings of a lunatic...because it is.

For a partial assemblage of the criminal activity of the Clinton/Daschle Democrats, click here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/723210/posts

Many thanks to our very own backhoe!

EV

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Here is our plan:

Step 1: We, the People, (Laurel and Hardy Beavis and Butthead) will draft the Articles of Impeachment.

Step 2: We, the People,(Laurel and Hardy Beavis and Butthead) will elect a Democratic Congress in November 2002 with instructions to impeach the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices.

[reillyoburbank]

Why is this posted here? Aren't enough hours in the day devoted to this crap by the left and their accomplices in the media? Why bring it here? I know you are trying to enlighten us but consider this: at least 95% of us here at FR are enlightened and know just how deceptive and conniving the RATS can be. Everytime I see a post involving RAT poop/propaganda my already high blood pressure rises according to the pap and its level of absurdity. I know you'll all flame me for stating the obvious but so be it. I'm sick and tired of RAT poop. It's time to exterminate the vermin's propaganda and move on. We know they are liars. They don't know how to do anything else. If the truth came out of one of them, their party would evaporate.

[BluesDuke]

I thought at first I was reading a comedy script. ;) As for how low can a Democrat go, don't ask! ;)

[ohioWfan]

Wow! Theres a bunch of good stuff on that list! Keep it up, Mr. President!

[Brian Allen]

Does FR choose to provide bandwidth for the promulgation of this delusional pornography?

FReegards -- Brian

[votelife]

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[ChadGore]

Let's take these one at a time:

---

"In 1999, the Republican Congress impeached President Bill Clinton after a $60 million investigation by Republican Special Prosecutor Ken Starr found no crimes by President Clinton - except consensual sex."

False. The party is in denial. Defending the indefensable, the mistake of the DNC fo shill for the criminal named clinton, is still costing the DNC votes, and untill they come to grips with the parties mistake to defending the indefensable, they'll loose like 2000 and 2002.

"In 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lost the Presidential election, both nationally and in Florida"

False. The party is in denial. Your president George W. Bush and your vice president, Richard Cheney won the election of 2000 together with a majority in the house, and a majority in the senate. The 2000 vote was a landslide, a tri-fecta for the GOP that was reaffirmed in 2002.

But five Republican "justices" on the U.S. Supreme Court declared Bush the winner by throwing out 175,000 uncounted Florida votes."

False. The party is in denial. The reality is that the supreme court, quite rightfully so, sent the case back to the Florida Supreeme Court to ask them to clear up the equal treatment problem in their decision. Al lost one recount, lost a second recount, and the election was certified by the then secretary of state, now state congresswoman Kathrine Harris. Now, If good old kathy Harris did wrong, how did she get elected? If her certifying the election, one would expect the good people of FL to be less than pleased with her, but in 2002, she WON, dispite the DNC milti million dollar clinton schmear campaign.

"George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have illegally occupied the White House since January 20, 2001."

False. The party is in denial. There's nothing to add, this is simply not a true thing.

Re:Article I Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

The Seante was given all the time in the world to debate the issue in the run up to the 2002 midterm elections and, in the end the Senate approved the use of firce against the country of Iraq. In fact, they debated this so poorly that the DNC was using the same platform as the Saddoms ba'th party, and so turned off the voter with their apeasment shrill BS, the voters removed the DNC from a majority party in the Senate.

How can the party hope to atract reasonable voters when they are lieing to themselves and others?