Letter from my Congressman about Impeachment

The Following is a response to my last email to my Congressman Peter DeFazio urging him to join the others in Congress pushing foe Impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney for the many crimes.:::

"Thanks for your message in support of impeaching the President, Vice President, or both. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
I share your outrage at the administration's many transgressions over the last six-plus years. I have used my voice and my vote to oppose the administration on multiple fronts. I have always opposed the war in Iraq. I voted against the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. I voted against the legislation establishing military tribunals, which also included provisions retroactively immunizing administration officials for authorizing torture and provisions allowing the President to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge. I voted against legislation authorizing warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. I have led the effort to prevent the administration from attacking Iran without congressional authorization. Despite my long and vocal record of opposition to the administration's harmful policies, I believe that impeachment is a dubious strategy that will fail to bring about the change our country needs.
Supporters of impeachment need to ask themselves a question: is the primary goal to attempt to personally punish the President and Vice President or is it to reverse the many detrimental policies that have been enacted over the last six years?
If it is the former, then I can understand why individuals would believe an attempt to impeach is the best option. But, if it is the latter, which is what I think the goal should be, then impeachment will not work because even if Members of the House put aside all urgent issues and consumed the next six months with impeachment and then voted to impeach, the Senate will never vote to convict the President or Vice President and remove them from office, meaning at the end of the process they will remain in office with their policies unchanged and all that will have been accomplished is a 6-12 month delay in trying to overturn their harmful policies.
The reason I draw that conclusion is based on the math in the Senate. Even with the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, there are only 51 Senators that caucus with the Democratic Party (including two independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). Even if all of these individuals supported impeachment (an unlikely prospect given the large number of conservative Democrats, not to mention Senator Lieberman), it would still require 16 Republicans to vote to convict the President or Vice President (2/3rds of the Senate, 67 votes, are needed to convict and remove from office). There is no evidence that any Republicans, let alone the 16 or likely more that would be required, will consider voting in favor of impeachment.
Just because an impeachment strategy is certain to end in failure doesn't mean Congress is impotent in terms of holding the administration accountable or reversing harmful policies.
I have advocated for an aggressive strategy of hearings, investigations (including the use of subpoena power) and legislation to overturn the administration's harmful policies.
This strategy is already bearing fruit. Although there are not yet quite enough votes in Congress to force a change in the President's Iraq policy, the President has been seriously challenged on Iraq since the Democratic takeover via both hearings and legislation. There have been multiple votes on bringing our troops home and establishing enforceable benchmarks for the administration's policy. This is something that did not happen under Republican control when the President was provided whatever he wanted with no questions asked. Further, the aggressive Democratic oversight has contributed to crumbling support for the President and his war even among members of his own party as evidenced by the recent public defections of key Republican senators.
Further the investigation and hearings into the political firings of U.S. Attorneys (again, something that never would have happened under the prior Republican leadership in Congress) have led to the resignation of several senior Justice Department personnel and hopefully will force out the Attorney General as well.
The Democratic takeover also led the administration to cave-in on its warrantless wiretapping program, agreeing earlier this year to subject future requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. Though, what the administration is actually submitting to the FISA Court needs further oversight.
And, while the administration continues to try to obstruct various investigations, Democratic leaders have not been shy about threatening to issue contempt citations and to take the administration to court to enforce subpoenas for testimony and documents.Finally, I am concerned that pursuing impeachment would suck all of the oxygen out of Congress, bringing all other issues to a halt and making it impossible to make progress on other priorities, such as taking on the oil companies; reorienting our energy policies toward clean, renewable electricity and fuels, as well as conservation; reforming and funding the No Child Left Behind law; expanding access to health insurance and affordable health care; among many other issues you and I care about.Since impeachment will not succeed in the Senate, pursuing it will not actually do anything to hold the administration accountable or overturn harmful policies. It would be a hollow effort. So the choice is real action via hearings, investigations and legislation, or symbolic action that won't change anything via impeachment. I prefer real action.
That said, for those concerned that a message needs to be sent to future presidents, I am a cosponsor of H.Res. 530, a resolution censuring President Bush for his manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, the leaking of the identity of an undercover CIA agent's name, and the pardoning of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Passage of this resolution, which only requires a majority vote, would send a powerful signal to future presidents and congresses.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON "

It's Armin Hammer Time

I want to take this brief moment and space to thank the man responsible for archiving and recording my radio shows, Mr. Armin Hammer. As well as being a member of San Francisco's amazing True Margrit he also has over 27 years experience as an audio recordist, mixer, mastering engineer, film transfer engineer. 5 years experience as Multimedia Production, and is now cosidered the Hardest Working Man in Showbusiness now that the great James Brown is gone.
Check his extensive credits HERE and HERE
Also he used to be my bandmate in some of my musical projects including late 70's new wave band The Jars. And Girls, he's single and available!
I could go on and on but please take a moment to meet the man who works so hard for nothing but the love of music, comedy and radio-the guy responsible for archiving my shows listed below, -Thank You Gary Hobish!!!

Listen To My Archived Radio Shows

I dunno if you ever followed the link to my archived programs, but they are available HERE
Just for chuckles,left click on the above HERE link,and each 1 hour segment will download to your desktop.Listen or burn as you please--but hurry, the older shows will be removed very soon!

Broadcast Date: Featuring:

7/15/07 *NEW* Guilty Pleasures- Ever wonder what MARC likes? Well, you asked for it! (What's that you say? You DIDN'T ask for it? Well... tough!) (Sorry for the short fade on The Man Band at the end...)

7/8/07 The Holographic Show- A potpurri show with Marc in a meloncholy mood- which is more fun than most of us being happy, y'know?

7/1/07 The Amazing World of Tiny Tim- In hour #1, Marc examines the underrated and misunderstood genius of Tiny Tim. Give it a shot- you'll be amazed by everything you didn't know about this ukelele-toting giant. Hour 2 is a sampling of things floating by The Rev. Mr. Time's windows the last few weeks.

6/24/07 The Summer Sunshine Show- It's summertime, summertime, sum-sum-summertine- Join the Reverend as he celebrates sumnmer, sunshine, and explains why this year is the summer of love! Plus your Cancer horscope and a special on the Cackle Sisters. Get the point?

6/17/07 The Father's Day Show- The Rev.'s tribute to all the "Mr. Grooves" out there. The history of Father's Day, stories, interviews and of course plenty of songs about our dads. Also, a segment featuring the unusual story of jazz musician Billy Tipton, and Marc's take on last Sunday's Sopranos finale.

6/9/07 A Sonar Map Radio Show Special- Start steaming your brats and hike up your liederhosen as The Rev. Marc Time pays tribute to his two favorite Krautrock bands, Cluster and Neu!

6/3/07 The HAPPY! Show- Ho, what fun! Including specials on classic world music songstress Yma Sumac, and a dip into the 5 Disc Fonotone Records Box set of Jug Band and Hillbilly Music.

5/27/07 The Memorial Day Show- Things to love about America: Johnny Cash, John Wayne (who apparently loves America for her geography), B.B. King, an extended segment on Korla Pandit, the Cackle Sisters, Betty Boop, June Carter, stag party records and the Kinks. (Hey, wait a minute...)

5/13/07 The Mother's Day Show- That says it all! Tributes and dedications to all the moms!

4/15/07 The Art Of Sleep- Music and commentary inspired by the activity to which humans devote 1/3 of their lives. No, not Anna Nicole's baby-daddy, sleep!

4/8/07 Riding The Chocolate Train to Easter Everywhere- Marc's tribute to the rebirth of Spring, rabbits, peeps, and the glory that is chocolate. Wanna buy a bunny?

4/1/07 The Rush Limbo Extravaganza Show- Guest host Rush Limbo playes the Best. Music. Ever. Visits from Paul Harvey, the Guvonater, John Wayne, Our Pal W., and a heartfelt tribute to the late Bob Dylan.

3/25/07 The Regular Show- Marc wings it this week. Exotica meets the romance of German cover songs. Hilarity ensues. (Hey Marc, personal request from Armin: can you do anything about a Nyquil hangover?)

3/18/07 "Back From The Shadows-" The Rev. Marc Time examines War, the Spring and the History Of The World. And a visit from Blue Boy.

3/11/07 The It Was 40 Years, 2 Months and 4 Weeks Ago Today Show- The Rev. Marc Time gets a jump on all those John-Paul-George-Ringo-Come-Latelies with a great tribute to what many consider to be the Most Influential Pop Record of All Time, The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Spilling over with session tapes, rare alternate and mono mixes and track deconstruction & commentary from The Beatles and producer George Martin.

3/4/07 The Incorrect Show- Oh this is just so wrong. Loaded up with both "incorrect" and "outsider" music, even more than you usual run-of-the-mill Hangover. They should have known better. Also, a young & beautiful camera crew interviews Marc. Nobody knows why. And a hummer from Mama Cass.

2/25/07 The Hangover Goes To Hollywood- On the morning of the Academy Awards, The Rev. Marc Time presents a tribute to some of the great music composed for the movies.

2/18/07 The Negative Show- And how are YOU today? Some wonderful rants & raves from the Reverend on death, ducks and the myth of Sysiphus. (I'm fine. And you? Fine. And you? And how are you? Fine. I'm fine. Are you fine? Fine. And now, a song about little children getting run over.)

1/28/07 BETTY BOOP SPECIAL- Part 1 of today's show is a tribute to the great songs of the Betty Boop cartoons, as originally heard in the original cartoon soundtracks and voiced by Mae Questel.
Part 2 finds a globetrotting Rev. Marc Time taking us to foreign lands for some unusual covers and a chase in the Jungle of Love. Also, Eartha Kitt gets evil and we get a hummer from Mama Cass.

1/14/07 Fun With Nukes! Celebrate our upcoming Nuke-u-lar Wars in the Mideast with the Rev as he plays excerpts from the Bear Family box set of Cold War stuff, Atomic Platters.This box set is a $230 list price German import and you may never hear it again! Listen to the likes of Johnny Cash, Groucho, Boris Karloff and Connie Francis teaching you how to build fallout shelters. Experience actual nuke attacks. Enjoy the Rockabilly, C&W and R&B sounds of artists like Wanda Jackson, Ann Marget, Bo Diddley and Hank Williams singing about blowing up Commies and the aftermath. 20 mega-tons of Fun!

1/7/07 The Free Design. It's hip to be square- or were they? Hip yes, square no. Listen with an open mind to the complex choral pop group that has inspired Cornelius, Pizzicato Five, Blueboy, Gentle People, Louis Philippe, Tomorrow's World, Stereolab and Belle and Sebastian. Interspersed with interviews with band leader/ writer arranger Chris Dedrick courtesy of KCRW and WKPS. Free Design

Bush Declares that He is Now The King

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Found This note on my windshield

I found this note on my truck today in the Smith parking lot next to the Museum of Unfine Art. The same person(I assume) defaced my Moveon.org
End This/Endless War Bumper sticker. Do you recognize the handwriting?
Who is dumber, me or the asshole who supports War?

The Politics of Fear

Did you ever notice that when Bush and Cheney are in trouble they drag out some old video of Bin Laden???
Booga Booga Booga!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bin Laden Appears in New al-Qaida Video
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- A new al-Qaida videotape posted Sunday on a militant Web site featured a short, undated clip of a weary-looking Osama bin Laden praising martyrdom.

The bin Laden clip, which lasted less than a minute, was part of a 40-minute video featuring purported al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan paying tribute to fellow militants who have been killed in the country.

Bin Laden glorified those who die in the name of jihad, or holy war, saying even the Prophet Muhammad "had been wishing to be a martyr."

"The happy (man) is the one that God has chosen him to be a martyr," added bin Laden, who was shown outdoors wearing army fatigues and looking tired.

The authenticity of the video could not be verified, but it appeared on a Web site commonly used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of as-Sahab, al-Qaida's media production wing. It was not immediately clear when the video of bin Laden was filmed.

Bin Laden was last heard from in a July 1, 2006 audio tape in which he voiced support for the new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and warned nations not to send troops to fight a hardline Islamic regime that had recently seized power in Somalia.

Sunday's video, dedicated to Muslims who have left their homes to fight jihad, included a series of animated scenes showing green fields overlaid with Arabic names written in gold, representing Arab fighters who had died in Afghanistan.

Following one such sequence, the self-proclaimed leader of al-Qaida in Afghanistan appeared praising his fellow fighters.

"Your hero sons, courageous knights have left to the land of Afghanistan ... the land of jihad and martyrdom, answering the call for the sake of God to kick out the occupier who has desecrated the pure soil of Afghanistan," said Mustafa Abu al-Yazeed.

In another clip, a man identified as Mujahid Haidarah al-Hawn was shown sitting in front of a tree with an AK-47 paying tribute to a Syrian fighter, Osama al-Hamawi, who died in an air raid in Afghanistan.

"I lived with him for four years," said al-Hawn, who wore a black scarf to cover his face. "He used to be my emir (commander) . . . He was a brother with extreme modesty."

A photo of al-Hamawi's face, apparently taken after his death, was broadcast, showing bruises around his eye and a red gash on his forehead.

A bearded man identified as Abu Yahia al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaida operative in Afghanistan, appeared in the video wearing a black turban, saying the Muslim world was "offering the best of its men and sacrificing the good of its sons ... to protect its ideology."

Al-Libi escaped U.S. custody in 2005 and is believed to be behind a suicide bombing that killed 23 people outside the main U.S. base in Afghanistan during a February visit by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Several other al-Qaida operatives from various countries who had apparently committed suicide attacks in Afghanistan were shown reading statements lashing out at the West before their deaths.

The video also contained a series of clips with militants wearing traditional Afghan dress and carrying rifles and RPG launchers through the mountains. Militants could also be seen exercising in training camps.

At the end of the broadcast, images of the Sept. 11 attacks were shown, and a voice could be heard saying, "In a few days, the crusaders' landmarks were flattened."

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Fang:Grunge Pioneers

I remember these guys coming into my record store(Universal) on Telegraph Ave in Berkeley in 1980 shoplifting. Sammy was real obnoxious but not as obnoxious as Rob Noxious or Johnny Puke.
Fang was a notorious Berkeley post-punk pre-grunge band from Berkeley that put out 2 Must Have EPs in the 80's(now a must have CD.)
Even Kurt Cobain was a fan and covered this song "Money Will Roll right In."
Sammy was great, I even saw them in Norwalk Connecticut in 1985(?) and they put on a Blistering show.
Too Bad Sammytown got sent to the slammer for killing his girlfriend.

Reply from Congressman Peter DeFazio and My Response

Subject:Reply from Congressman Peter DeFazio
Date:Friday, July 13, 2007 1:05:36 PM


Thanks for your message in support of impeaching the President, Vice President, or both. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
I share your outrage at the administration's many transgressions over the last six-plus years. I have used my voice and my vote to oppose the administration on multiple fronts. I have always opposed the war in Iraq. I voted against the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. I voted against the legislation establishing military tribunals, which also included provisions retroactively immunizing administration officials for authorizing torture and provisions allowing the President to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge. I voted against legislation authorizing warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. I have led the effort to prevent the administration from attacking Iran without congressional authorization. Despite my long and vocal record of opposition to the administration's harmful policies, I believe that impeachment is a dubious strategy that will fail to bring about the change our country needs.

Supporters of impeachment need to ask themselves a question: is the primary goal to attempt to personally punish the President and Vice President or is it to reverse the many detrimental policies that have been enacted over the last six years?

If it is the former, then I can understand why individuals would believe an attempt to impeach is the best option. But, if it is the latter, which is what I think the goal should be, then impeachment will not work because even if Members of the House put aside all urgent issues and consumed the next six months with impeachment and then voted to impeach, the Senate will never vote to convict the President or Vice President and remove them from office, meaning at the end of the process they will remain in office with their policies unchanged and all that will have been accomplished is a 6-12 month delay in trying to overturn their harmful policies.
The reason I draw that conclusion is based on the math in the Senate. Even with the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, there are only 51 Senators that caucus with the Democratic Party (including two independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). Even if all of these individuals supported impeachment (an unlikely prospect given the large number of conservative Democrats, not to mention Senator Lieberman), it would still require 16 Republicans to vote to convict the President or Vice President (2/3rds of the Senate, 67 votes, are needed to convict and remove from office). There is no evidence that any Republicans, let alone the 16 or likely more that would be required, will consider voting in favor of impeachment.
ust because an impeachment strategy is certain to end in failure doesn't mean Congress is impotent in terms of holding the administration accountable or reversing harmful policies.
I have advocated for an aggressive strategy of hearings, investigations (including the use of subpoena power) and legislation to overturn the administration's harmful policies.
This strategy is already bearing fruit. Although there are not yet quite enough votes in Congress to force a change in the President's Iraq policy, the President has been seriously challenged on Iraq since the Democratic takeover via both hearings and legislation. There have been multiple votes on bringing our troops home and establishing enforceable benchmarks for the administration's policy. This is something that did not happen under Republican control when the President was provided whatever he wanted with no questions asked. Further, the aggressive Democratic oversight has contributed to crumbling support for the President and his war even among members of his own party as evidenced by the recent public defections of key Republican senators.

Further the investigation and hearings into the political firings of U.S. Attorneys (again, something that never would have happened under the prior Republican leadership in Congress) have led to the resignation of several senior Justice Department personnel and hopefully will force out the Attorney General as well.
The Democratic takeover also led the administration to cave-in on its warrantless wiretapping program, agreeing earlier this year to subject future requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. Though, what the administration is actually submitting to the FISA Court needs further oversight.
And, while the administration continues to try to obstruct various investigations, Democratic leaders have not been shy about threatening to issue contempt citations and to take the administration to court to enforce subpoenas for testimony and documents.
Finally, I am concerned that pursuing impeachment would suck all of the oxygen out of Congress, bringing all other issues to a halt and making it impossible to make progress on other priorities, such as taking on the oil companies; reorienting our energy policies toward clean, renewable electricity and fuels, as well as conservation; reforming and funding the No Child Left Behind law; expanding access to health insurance and affordable health care; among many other issues you and I care about.
Since impeachment will not succeed in the Senate, pursuing it will not actually do anything to hold the administration accountable or overturn harmful policies. It would be a hollow effort. So the choice is real action via hearings, investigations and legislation, or symbolic action that won't change anything via impeachment. I prefer real action.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON

My Response:

Dear Congressman-

Per "do the Math" and to whether we could get enough votes to impeach, or for that matter end the war:

Did our patriot forefathers in the18th century decide that because they"didn't have the numbers" they couldn't declare independence and release themselves from King George?
The commutation of Libby and Miers' giving Congress the finger are both tyrannical and grave offenses-President Bush's lying us into war and the other 999 scandals are grounds for impeachment.
The people are waiting. If we let this president get away with all of this we will have to deal with every other president in the future looking back on all this as the green light to do whatever he or she wants to do, no matter what the consequences.
I appreciate your stance and your voting record-but it is your duty as my representative to uphold the constitution and keep the executive branch in check. It is our duty as Americans to resist tyranny and treason in the White House.

Thanks for your speedy replies and your service,

Marc Time

Tiny Tim

I got a CD from the library this week:"God Bless Tiny Tim: The Complete Reprise
Studio Masters...And More" and I can't believe how amazing Tiny Tim was. This is a 3 CD set of his Reprise albums with outtakes from the late 60's and it is truly astounding!
Today on the first hour of the HANGOVER I am featuring the best of this CD by this musical genius.

Go Here for more.