Song of the Season: "God Turn it Around"

https://youtu.be/h7-IAFogxcM?si=GwyloGoPFlaJ4y40

 "God, Turn It Around" is a popular contemporary Christian song written by Jon Reddick, Anthony Skinner, and Jess Cates. 

Diplomacy First

​Reflecting on a leader who put country and diplomacy first. No censorship such..forum is open.

 

Image cite: TBA

Volunteer Recruitment Call: Checks & Balances Blogspot/Integrity Balance Inc

 

Any volunteer can make effort make an impact upon their community issue by contributing whatever your 'gifts' might be; physical, time, talent, ideas or even prayer. What is unique about this forming & norminh phase is that youth and adults will both be permitted to serve on the Leadership Board togther.

This is a call for actiob, volunteers and monetary contributions.

Progress on turning the blog into a grass roots organization may just rely on what occurs in 2026!

Contact info: (727) 643-5527

atyodabrooks@gmail.com 

Contributions at this time can only be made via cash app or by contacted directly the founding leader as to where checks can be brought and/or mailed. 

@atyodabrooks

                 "For faith is the most powerful engine on earth" 

Cite: https://www.pexels.com/photo/volunteer-search-party-10349598/

National Day of Racial Healing

 

Choose to include in 2025/2026

                                                     Choose to include in 2025/2026

Image citation: https://www.facebook.com/LetsFeelThePower/posts/for-anyone-feeling-left-out-or-excluded-mondaymotivation/2306229219453439/

Have yet to figure out hash tags but here you go: #mondaymotivation

Luke 19:40 - Let us not be silent

                    Luke 19:40 "I tell you, "he replied. "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

                   ELECTION Day is no time to be silent. Get yourself out and vote at a minimum!!!

Image Source: https://medialibrary.cloversites.com/assets/rocks-powerpoint-sermon-230866

ELECTION Day November 4th, 2025 !!! Fired Up Ready to Lead.

                                                       Fired Up Ready to Go. - President Barack Obama

A family messaged me with "its a movement". In deed it is. Find your place and event! Exercise your right to VOTE in St. Petersburg Florida and in many cities in the great USA -- November 4 is municipal Election Day!

Checks & Balances Blogspot/Checks & Integrity Inc continues to vouch for and support the below freedom movements. 

50501 The Movement 

https://www.fiftyfifty.one/

No Kings Movement

https://www.nokings.org/

Follow up to No Kings March/ A National Movement Supporting Freedom of Speech!!!

   Brief Statement to continue following the movement: The No Kings Marches and Protests which occurred over the Summer 2025 paralleling other which are not uniform in membership nor agenda but, in purpose they are. Let me add that as of late I have been listening a veteran civil rights leader giving kudos to him; the Honorable Rev. Sharpton (leader of the National Action Network). In addition to the following civil rights groups I patronize even if my dues lapse on occasion the NAACP (locally and nationally) and Equality Florida (locally and nationally also). Giving a positive shot out to efforts in rural areas of the country such as in Missouri and Kansas City, a beautiful diverse state which receive little hype outside of the super bowl. The movement is juts as pure and on target supporting American freedoms as seen in New York and Tampa Bay according to news reports. As I have yet had the pleasure of visiting New York City. For freedom, liberty and democracy. -A.T. Yoda Brooks

Source: https://www.nokings.org/next

National Action Network: https://nationalactionnetwork.net/

Supporting Autism Speaks!

 Supporting Autism Speaks! Consider making a donation to this outstanding cause.

Source: https://www.autismspeaks.org/

AURORA HAIK CONCERT, FULL PERFORMANCE, (SUBTITLES)(CC)(HD)

Prayer to the creator and nature

 

 

 Prayers to the creator and nature

Lord God of all creation, may the richness and beauty 

of the natural world never cease to uplift and sustain us.

May we constantly be aware of how our actions affect the environment

And strive to create a fairer and more sustainable world.

May we always be grateful for nature's gifts, and mat we continuously 

work to preserve and cherish them. Through Christ our lord.

Amen.

 

 

Source: the artist is unknown but grateful for the depiction of angels which many of believe in across faiths.

Exploring Weedon Island Preserve

Exploring Weedon Island Preserve

What I thought would be a couple hours visit to the park I have now fallen in love with this Florida - Tampa Bay nature preserve and its telling history of Native American heritage. TBA more to be added (photos) as I have finished 3 days hiking. Mantra: Peace & love of nature. - A.T. Yoda Brooks

Source: https://pinellas.gov/parks/weedon-island-preserve/

Pions in the cog of society

 Pions in the cog of society. But we are not supposed to compare........neither we are simple statistics. - A.T. Yoda Brooks

 

 

Artist source: dreamstime.com 

Speaking Out Against Violent Gangs!

     Remembering our best leaders and their example while speaking out against violent gangs. Alternatives for our youth include the arts, sports and music programs. Crime within our Communities the statistics however our American people & youth are not simply statistics. This week WE honor, send respect to those who serve, have served and shall serve as they have determined that to be their pathway forward even as young adults. Remembering those who contributed to War domestic and abroad; uniform an civilian in the name of liberty, democracy and freedom. Two such youth I would like to mention leading the way showing excellence in diversity (music and business) as many graduate this Spring are my niece and Mr. Kayden Kelly. Always lean towards peace, communication and education before aggressive tactics no matter the side.

   Reaching other non-profits within this fine community doing good work with the goal to unite. Not just here in the beautiful City of St. Petersburg Florida but throughout the region. Supporting our schools and recovery communities, allies within it, rather it by day by day, one good idea, or volunteer by volunteer.

 I have not decided if I am going to serve a partisan political party again, but it is time that our best leaders stand up. Advocating for additional funding of all these programs. Community Service Officers (CSOs)". Efforts to expand such were at one time where many people felt the nation was pivoting towards politically. My question is what happened to that political resolve to solve one of many vexing issues throughout America?

Peace, love, democracy and faith. A vision of unity I envision for this great country we call the United States of America. Which is one the purposes for creating this independent blog. - A.T. Yoda Brooks

Source: https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/friends-from-tampa-to-south-beach-mourn-drag-queen/2123723/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftCOXVetjI&t=15s

Tribute to our First President & Founding Father: George W. Washington

 The political legacy George W. Washington left to the world that impressed me the most advises regarding speaking on things which offend people. To do or not today can be an effective political strategy. TBA regarding the the exact quote. And today the image of  George W. Washington I want to show is not loaded. We will blame it on the 'f___ hackers. - A.T. Yoda Brooks Match 15 2025

"In his Farewell Address, George Washington urged Americans to cultivate "peace and harmony with all nations" and avoid "permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachment for others," emphasizing the importance of a neutral stance in foreign relations to prevent being controlled by foreign influence or passions. 

Key Points from Washington's Farewell Address:

• Avoiding Foreign Entanglements:

  Washington advised against forming permanent alliances with foreign powers, arguing that it could entangle the nation's peace and prosperity in the "toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice". 
• Importance of Neutrality:

  He stressed the importance of neutrality in foreign relations, stating that "it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world". 
• Cultivating Peace and Harmony:

  Washington urged Americans to "observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all". 
• Avoiding Passionate Attachments:

  He warned against "permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachment for others," as these could lead to a nation being controlled by its own passions. 
• Focus on National Interests:

  Washington emphasized that Americans should focus on what is best for their country, not what is best for their political party or foreign powers. 
• Maintaining a Free Government:

  He warned against the dangers of political factions and the potential for them to undermine the government and lead to tyranny. 
• Importance of Virtue and Morality:

  Washington believed that a nation's morality and virtue were essential for the success of a free government and that religion played a crucial role in maintaining these values. 
• Importance of Checks and Balances:

  He warned against the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of maintaining a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny. 
• Importance of the Constitution:

  He emphasized the importance of upholding the Constitution and cautioned against any changes by usurpation, stating that "if in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates". 

Source: Generative AI is experimental.

Talk about Impeachment

For some time there has been much talk about Impeaching the G.W. Bush Administration. The prime goal would be too remove Bush and Cheney both from Office through legal or procedural means.

The pieces are beginning to come together:

1) Rep. Jon Conyers Jr. of Michigan legislation for Investigations on the Iraq War and Impeachment
http://www.house.gov/conyers/

2) Senator Russ Finegold of Wisconsin move for Censure

3) The Illinois State legislature is exploring the power of states to call for removing Mr. G.W. Bush

4) California State discusses Impeaching Bush and Cheney
http://shows.airamericaradio.com/play.php?file=RandiRhodes/2006/APRIL/4-25-06/Randi_4-25.wma

April 22, 2006Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell Utilizing a little known rule of the US House to bring Impeachment charges by Steven Leser The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois' 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born. Detailing five specific charges against President Bush including one that is specified to be a felony, the complete text of HJR0125 is copied below at the end of this article. One of the interesting points is that one of the items, the one specified as a felony, that the NSA was directed by the President to spy on American citizens without warrant, is not in dispute. That fact should prove an interesting dilemma for a Republican controlled US House that clearly is not only loathe to initiate impeachment proceedings, but does not even want to thoroughly investigate any of the five items brought up by the Illinois Assembly as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Should HJR0125 be passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the US House will be forced by House Rules to take up the issue of impeachment as a privileged bill, meaning it will take precedence over other House business.The Illinois General Assembly joins a growing chorus of voices calling for censure or impeachment of President Bush including Democratic state committees in Vermont, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina as well as the residents themselves of seven towns in Vermont, seventy Vermont state legislators and Congressman John Conyers. The call for impeachment is starting to grow well beyond what could be considered a fringe movement. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll Conducted April 6-9 showed that 33% of Americans currently support Impeaching President Bush, coincidentally, only a similar amount supported impeaching Nixon at the start of the Watergate investigation. If and when Illinois HJR0125 hits the capitol and the individual charges are publicly investigated, that number is likely to grow rapidly. Combined with the very real likelihood that Rove is about to be indicted in the LeakGate investigation, and Bush is in real trouble beyond his plummeting poll numbers. His cronies in the Republican dominated congress will probably save him from the embarassment of an impeachment conviction, for now, but his Presidency will be all but finished.---------------------------------------------------------HJ0125 LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r 1 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of 3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal 4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of 5 a state legislature; and 6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering 7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically 9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without 10 warrant; and 11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized 12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, 13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States 14 Constitution; and 15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American 16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war 17 without charge or trial; and 18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration 19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a 20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the 21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the 22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and 23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and 24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified 25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an 26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential 27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to 28 investigate the matter; and 29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined HJ0125 - 2 - LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r 1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE 4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the 5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S. 6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President 7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office 8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 9 States; and be it further 10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the 11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and 12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.
NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). In the 93d Congress, the Vice President sought to initiate an investigation by the House of charges against him of possibly impeachable offenses. The Speaker and the House took no action on the request since the matter was pending in the courts and the offenses did not relate to activities during the Vice President's term of office (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368; III, 2510 (wherein the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the matter had been referred by privileged resolution, reported that the Vice President could not be impeached for acts or omissions committed before his term of office)). On the other hand, in 1826 the Vice President's request that the House investigate charges against his prior official conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on motion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9, 1998, an independent counsel transmitted to the House under 28 U.S.C. 595© a communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the Committee on the Judiciary, restricting Members' access to the communication, and restricting access to committee meetings and hearings on the communication (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). The authority to appoint an independent counsel under 28 U.S.C. 573 expired on June 30, 1999.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060422_bush_impeachment___t.htm

Censure now, Impeach next

I’ve been pushing for Impeachment but Censure is good enough for now.

Censure is defined as Less severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members.

Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold Introducing a Resolution to Censure President George W. Bush

March 13, 2006

“Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.

All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.

And we must do that. The President’s actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.

At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.

This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President’s conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.
Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.
As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances:
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president’s actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.
This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the Patriot Act, and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. In both of those instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President’s actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.
That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law. If there were a demonstrated need to change that law, Congress could consider that step. But instead the President is refusing to follow that law while offering the flimsiest of arguments to justify his misconduct. He must be held accountable for his actions.
The facts are straightforward: Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as “FISA”, nearly 30 years ago to ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also protect innocent Americans from unjustified government intrusion. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil. The President has broken that law, and that alone is unacceptable. But the President did much more than that.
Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions, and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program.
He has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people.
The President’s own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.
We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after September 11th. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way in several speeches to assure the public that the government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States – something that he now admits was not the case.
On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.”
In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn’t being upfront with the American people.
Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: “Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”
Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”
In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn’t telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political battle during the presidential campaign, and later over Patriot Act reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a systems of checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration’s performance.
This conduct is unacceptable. The President had a duty to play it straight with the American people. But for political purposes, he ignored that duty.
After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress until February, but the President’s surrogates held press conferences and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted lawfully.
Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign. In the State of the Union address, he implied that the program was necessary because otherwise the government would be unable to wiretap terrorists at all. That is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t need a warrant to wiretap terrorists overseas – period. You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rules for these types of domestic wiretaps.
FISA created a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. They are the judges who review applications for business records orders and wiretapping authority under the Patriot Act. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. It has used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time it asserts that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” in this age of terrorism and can’t be complied with. Clearly, the Administration can and does comply with it – except when it doesn’t. Then it just arbitrarily decides to go around these judges, and around the law.
The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could remove if it wanted.
FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.
The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.
This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.
In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.
The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.” A letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.” The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.” And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.” Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.
The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.
But it is one thing to make a legal argument that has no real support in the law. It is much worse to do what the President has done, which is to make misleading statements about what prior Presidents have done and what courts have approved, to try to make the public believe his legal arguments are much stronger than they are.
For example, in the State of the Union, the President argued that federal courts have approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. I asked the Attorney General about this when he came before the Judiciary Committee, and he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.
In the same speech, the President referred to other Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course, those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch could no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. I asked the Attorney General about this issue when he testified before the Judiciary Committee. And neither he nor anyone in the Administration has been able to come up with a single prior example of wiretapping inside the United States since 1978 that was conducted outside FISA’s authorization.
So the President’s arguments in the State of the Union were baseless, and it is unacceptable that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.
The President also has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.
Finally, the President has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program.
Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.” Nor does the latest agreement to allow a seven-member subcommittee to review the program comply with the law. Granting a minority of the committee access to information is inadequate and still does not comply with the law requiring that the full committee be kept fully informed.
In addition, we now know that some of the Gang of Eight expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. One of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.
None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do.
And perhaps that is what is most troubling here, Mr. President. Even more troubling than the arguments the President has made is what he relies on to make them convincing – the credibility of the office of the President itself. He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply because of the office he holds.
But Presidents don’t serve our country by just asking for trust, they must earn that trust, and they must tell the truth.
This President hides behind flawed legal arguments, and even behind the office he holds, but he cannot hide from what he has created: nothing short of a constitutional crisis. The President has violated the law, and Congress must respond. Congress must investigate and demand answers. Congress should also determine whether current law is inadequate and address that deficiency if it is demonstrated. But before doing so, Congress should ensure that there is accountability for authorizing illegal conduct.
A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the President thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable. If Congress does not reaffirm the rule of law, we will create another failure of leadership, and deal another blow to the public’s trust.
The President’s wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future, but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.
Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive’s conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities. Both of those alternatives are ways for Congress to affect future action. But when the President acts illegally, he should be formally rebuked. He should be censured.
The founders anticipated abuses of executive power by creating a balance of powers in the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, require us to preserve that balance, and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious transgression by the President with a serious response. We must work, as the founders urged us in Federalist Number 51, to control the abuses of government.
The Constitution looks to the Congress to right the balance of power. The American people look to us to take action, to speak out, with one clear voice, against wrongdoing by the President of the United States. In our system of government, no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks. I yield the floor. “
# # #

Senator Finegold:
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html

Daily Kos Reports:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/92636/8829?bcsi_scan_F2E1FCD5D87E8CA5=4A2AkvM+u0RpxFb/qLQ67wIAAADu/wEB

Grassroots Impeachment Movement Continues to Grow

27 Members of the House Now Support Impeachment Inquiry

There are now 27 members of the House of Representatives, including John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee who are supporting a bill, H. Res 635, calling for "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before Congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

"Our principles are enshrined in our Constitution and a system of duly enacted laws, and in a government where all are accountable and no one is above the law," stated Rep. Barbara Lee of California, one of the co-sponsors of the impeachment inquiry. "Our Constitution gives us a system of checks and balances and divided power because our founders were bitterly familiar with dealing with an unaccountable executive and were determined that our nation should not have a king," said Congresswoman Lee.

Freedom Movement, Re-thought.

There is a large number of Americans that want to see G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney resign or be impeached. In light of the current political climate I believe this goal is more of a reality.

After this, excuse my French, Bull Shit with wiretapping upon American citizens without going through the FISA Court I see this now longer as a movement for Impeachment but a movement for Freedom. While Freedom is on the march in Iraq and Afghanistan it is being constricted in America. As I think on this matter I must also say that I am fully conscious of the additional constriction of economic freedoms that motivate the pursuit of the American dream.

As shown in the picture above from September 2005, 100,000 plus + American citizens protested right outside of the White House in opposition to this Administration.

It upsets me greatly that our government and certain 'Media outlets' continue to ignore the vast numbers that oppose the current agenda.

They say liberals, independents, greens have no 'legitimate' ideas. Legitimate according to whom: The GOP? I beg to differ: not just on this blog but countless Democratic politicians have been attempting to present bills & ideas that have been rejected by the GOP.

Specifically: the War in Iraq, Corruption, Domestic policy and advancing regular citizens.

This event in September should have sent a wake up call to the President and to Conservatives in charge that they need to at the least listen to those in opposition.

Rep. John Lewis (D) [whom walked along Martin Luther King Jr.] said and I paraphrase, ‘as a boy he lived on a farm where he raised chickens. He aspired to be a minister and practiced his sermons on these chickens. Mr. Lewis said those chickens use to node their heads like they understood what he was saying. Mr. Lewis in a recent speech said those chickens listened to him more than the Republicans in charge of the government. ‘

I believe that us concerned citizens, after our democratic opinions being ignored for years should cease in following simple acts of civil protest & assembling, and engage in actions of civil disobedience to the very boundary of the law.

A Call to Progressives: Investigate Bush!

I must speak frankly about the Progressive Movement because I believe all camps can realistically achieve their goals but only by putting aside our natural inclinations to be autonomous and form a more unified movement. Current Methods utilized by our organizations & members are unrealistically applicable to achieving our goals.

What do I mean? We have not won elections, and we are not raising enough money.

We need change, not just within our opponents the ‘Radical Republicans’ but within our very Progressive/Liberal Organizations and Approaches.
I have been involved with crazy protest to formal Democratic Party meetings and I observe that we have forgotten something that may seem fuzzy but is the Truth and strength of our cause. There is Power in numbers.

The strength of our opponents lies in there is power in money.
But we have the numbers, however too many liberal groups don’t even have the desire to form sincere coalitions with other organizations possessing the same goal. We must unify and then move our People or we will continue to loose at the ballot.

We must move Progressives to:
1) Vote, 2) Demonstrate 3) Educate 4) Raise Money

Move.On, the Democratic Party, Civil Rights/Liberties Groups, Veterans for Peace, Camp Casey, Hollywood, Religious Institutions, and Unions (just to name a few) cannot and will not win until we suck it up and work together.

I pose this question? What Tangible things are the Movement doing to push its goals?Demonstrations in themselves are a waist of resources if they are not accompanied with a barrage of other coordinated strategies.

Exhibit #1) One Official National Campaign & Petition circulated by all organizations and activist could have been distributed at the Mass Demonstration on Sept 24th - 26th 2005 collecting over 100,000 verifiable signatures. We now should develop and disseminate a Campaign & Petition adhering to legal standards so that it can be recognizable by and acted upon by the Government. This Central Petition could then be presented to the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress.

Exhibit #2) The Time Line. From personal observation, Progressive Organizations and the Democratic Party are setting Timelines for 2006, and placing greater emphasis on 2008. These plans are setting the Movement up for failure. Push the timelines and focus the present energies of these citizens Now! The People of our country are speaking up Now! We cannot wait until 2006 to gamble on Congressional Races, and 2008 to place our full hand on one Presidential race. Our strategies need to pick up Now! We need to push to End the War in Iraq Now, to Have Investigations Now, to Stop Legislation Now, to Impeach the President Now! All of these in addition to directing resources towards the elections of 2006 & 2008. We cannot simply focus on Candidates & Election Cycles but also on our issues.

Exhibit #3) The Constitution must be the foundation for our agenda. Dissenting arguments & Ideological insignificancies against the Iraq War and Bush’s initiatives as President have no merit if they are not in relation to what we believe to be illegal actions in violation of our Constitution and other laws. Furthermore, Conspiracy Theories and Ideological Views may very well be true, but not credible until they are proven. We must work within the United State’s system of Democracy to make change and push for non-partisan investigation of these credible theories & allegations.

A) Define High Crimes and Misdemeanors according to the Constitution clearly & unbiased. State these definitions along with the Movements accusations in speeches and publications.

B) Define what is meant by War Crimes and Humanitarian violations as applicable to the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, matters of Imprisonment, Due Process, and International Laws. According to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. President can be removed from office in violation of International Laws, Agreements, Obligations and possibly violations of Standards of Human Rights.

C) Finally, there is a matter that has not been addressed but I believe could lead to resignations from President Bush to Prime Ministers Tony Blair to Cabinet Secretaries to Military Generals. The United Sates and our closet ally Great Britain are Democracies, specifically the U.S. is a Republic. However boring and insipid it may seem, the Chief Executive (President G.W. Bush) knowingly not adhering to the principles of Democracy and authorities given within the Constitution is criminal. The Constitution of the United States of America the cornerstone of our society grants the People the Power of Oversight via the Congress. The Constitution grants Congress the power of investigation which approximates the power of Oversight.

Let us discuss the matter of Information provided to the Public as it relates to Congress, the United Nations, and International Organizations specifically in regards to Declaring War and its direct relationship to the Constitutionally Power of Oversight by the People. The President nor anyone in the Government has any Right, Constitutional Power, nor Authority to “fix”, alter or manipulate such information in any form specifically in relation to Declaring War. In my opinion this would not only be defined as an act greater than a “High Crime & Misdemeanors” as required by the Constitution for Impeachment but synonymous to Treason. By American Law, Treason is a capital offense, punishable by death.

Am I wrong? Such an act I assert has been committed by President G.W. Bush has and is causing unjustified American deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan? This duty in providing unadulterated information specifically in the matter of War is, and I cannot say any more strongly, a sacred duty placed at the responsibility of our President , Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.The Progressive Movement needs bright lawyers with clear unbiased, non-partisan minds to explore this Constitutional Power of Oversight belonging only to the People via Congress. In light of recent events we certainly cannot rely on any ‘Radical Republican’ to stand up with integrity.

This Power of Oversight must also be evaluated as it relates to Government Officials, Agencies & Offices providing information and in light of Hurricane Katrina services to the Public. The duty of the President and Congress, if any and if so the appropriate punishment for this derelict and/or abuse of these offices of Public Service.

There are also other issues that have been effectively mucked up by the White House. They include but are not limited too Information provided to the Public and too Congress in relation to this Constitution Power of Oversight, clear unethical & immoral correlations between Dick Cheney his role as Vice President, his former position as Secretary of Defense, his relationships with the Oil Industry, and how this literally ties into the company of Halliburton. President Bush’s role as President as it relates to the Oil Industry and his knowledge of unethical acts involving his Vice President. And even more pressing possible illegal and Impeachment violations of the U.S. Constitution in regards to Domestic Surveillance.

What I believe is urgent and must be pushed aggressively by the Movement and other agreeing citizens are a Series of Independent Non-Partisan (not bi-partisan) Investigations to answer these questions. I speak respectively to my Republican and Conservative friends, you call many assertions stated in this letter as lies or conspiracy theory. If you are truly honorable to the flag of our great nation you cannot object and I pray you will join in this call demanding for such Investigations. Influenced by no Political Party, but only guided by American Standards of Justice.

The White House and Congress are fully aware it is their interest to prevent Independent Investigation (s). But I ask you, is this suppressment of investigation (s) in the interest of you, your family, your money and your nation?