I will be the MC at a Tea Party on April 15th. It will be held downtown at noon. Organizers are trying to get permission to use Acacia Park. I'll give you more details as they are made final.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
TEA PARTY
I will be the MC at a Tea Party on April 15th. It will be held downtown at noon. Organizers are trying to get permission to use Acacia Park. I'll give you more details as they are made final.
Monday, March 30, 2009
BLUE EYED WHITE PEOPLE TO BLAME
GO FIGURE A SOCIALIST WOULD THINK THIS....
I'M JUST SAYINBG
RICHARD
Brazil's President, while meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Thursday, said the global financial crisis was caused by "white people with blue eyes."
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silvamade made the comments after talks with Brown to try to forge a global consensus on how to save the worldwide economy.
During a press conference, da Silva, a socialist who told Brown poor countries should not have to suffer because of the mistakes of the rich, suddenly pointed his finger at Brown and said, "This is a crisis that was caused by white people with blue eyes. And before the crisis, they looked as if they knew everything about economics."
Sky News' Joey Jones said it was an "uncomfortable" moment for Brown.
"The President does not mind using fairly flamboyant language. He likes to give extensive answers to journalists," he said. "But some of it was rather awkward for the Prime Minister, who was standing there listening to the President. A few eyebrows will have gone up at what he said."
Downing Street says the remarks made by da Silva, who is white, were meant for "domestic consumption."
Jones said: "People in Brazil are very frustrated and angry at what they feel is the injustice of the situation: a crisis that has essentially come from the banking sectors in places like the United States and the U.K., but is affecting their country."
Following the meeting, Brown told reporters he will urge G20 leaders to back a multi-billion dollar fund to reverse a slide in world trade.
"I'm going to ask the G20summit next week to support a global expansion of trade finance of at least $100 billion to help revive trade in all parts of the world," he said.
A shortage of trade credit, which allows exporters and importers to settle accounts, has been a factor in a sharp drop in global trade which is exacerbating the economic downturn.
Along with the trade stimulus plan, the Prime Ministersaid he wanted to see global standards on salaries in the finance sector.
He went on to say he believes South America is key to achieving an agreement at next week's G20 summit in London.
I'M JUST SAYINBG
RICHARD
Brazil's President, while meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Thursday, said the global financial crisis was caused by "white people with blue eyes."
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silvamade made the comments after talks with Brown to try to forge a global consensus on how to save the worldwide economy.
During a press conference, da Silva, a socialist who told Brown poor countries should not have to suffer because of the mistakes of the rich, suddenly pointed his finger at Brown and said, "This is a crisis that was caused by white people with blue eyes. And before the crisis, they looked as if they knew everything about economics."
Sky News' Joey Jones said it was an "uncomfortable" moment for Brown.
"The President does not mind using fairly flamboyant language. He likes to give extensive answers to journalists," he said. "But some of it was rather awkward for the Prime Minister, who was standing there listening to the President. A few eyebrows will have gone up at what he said."
Downing Street says the remarks made by da Silva, who is white, were meant for "domestic consumption."
Jones said: "People in Brazil are very frustrated and angry at what they feel is the injustice of the situation: a crisis that has essentially come from the banking sectors in places like the United States and the U.K., but is affecting their country."
Following the meeting, Brown told reporters he will urge G20 leaders to back a multi-billion dollar fund to reverse a slide in world trade.
"I'm going to ask the G20summit next week to support a global expansion of trade finance of at least $100 billion to help revive trade in all parts of the world," he said.
A shortage of trade credit, which allows exporters and importers to settle accounts, has been a factor in a sharp drop in global trade which is exacerbating the economic downturn.
Along with the trade stimulus plan, the Prime Ministersaid he wanted to see global standards on salaries in the finance sector.
He went on to say he believes South America is key to achieving an agreement at next week's G20 summit in London.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
THIS WAS SUGGESTED BY A LISTENER
Richard Here...
Ok... to be honest i have not read this before... how bad is that??? Pretty bad... but will read it tonight and comment on it tomorrow.
Don't let the outrage get to you... but don't ignore it either.
Richard
FEDERALIST PAPER No. 63
The Senate Continued
For the Independent Journal.
Alexander Hamilton / James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
A fifth desideratum, illustrating the utility of a senate, is the want of a due sense of national character. Without a select and stable member of the government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy, proceeding from the causes already mentioned, but the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence.
An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?
Yet however requisite a sense of national character may be, it is evident that it can never be sufficiently possessed by a numerous and changeable body. It can only be found in a number so small that a sensible degree of the praise and blame of public measures may be the portion of each individual; or in an assembly so durably invested with public trust, that the pride and consequence of its members may be sensibly incorporated with the reputation and prosperity of the community. The half-yearly representatives of Rhode Island would probably have been little affected in their deliberations on the iniquitous measures of that State, by arguments drawn from the light in which such measures would be viewed by foreign nations, or even by the sister States; whilst it can scarcely be doubted that if the concurrence of a select and stable body had been necessary, a regard to national character alone would have prevented the calamities under which that misguided people is now laboring.
I add, as a SIXTH defect the want, in some important cases, of a due responsibility in the government to the people, arising from that frequency of elections which in other cases produces this responsibility. This remark will, perhaps, appear not only new, but paradoxical. It must nevertheless be acknowledged, when explained, to be as undeniable as it is important.
Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party, and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgment can be formed by the constituents. The objects of government may be divided into two general classes: the one depending on measures which have singly an immediate and sensible operation; the other depending on a succession of well-chosen and well-connected measures, which have a gradual and perhaps unobserved operation. The importance of the latter description to the collective and permanent welfare of every country, needs no explanation. And yet it is evident that an assembly elected for so short a term as to be unable to provide more than one or two links in a chain of measures, on which the general welfare may essentially depend, ought not to be answerable for the final result, any more than a steward or tenant, engaged for one year, could be justly made to answer for places or improvements which could not be accomplished in less than half a dozen years. Nor is it possible for the people to estimate the SHARE of influence which their annual assemblies may respectively have on events resulting from the mixed transactions of several years. It is sufficiently difficult to preserve a personal responsibility in the members of a NUMEROUS body, for such acts of the body as have an immediate, detached, and palpable operation on its constituents.
The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the legislative department, which, having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.
Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
It may be suggested, that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures. I am far from denying that this is a distinction of peculiar importance. I have, on the contrary, endeavored in a former paper to show, that it is one of the principal recommendations of a confederated republic. At the same time, this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions. It may even be remarked, that the same extended situation, which will exempt the people of America from some of the dangers incident to lesser republics, will expose them to the inconveniency of remaining for a longer time under the influence of those misrepresentations which the combined industry of interested men may succeed in distributing among them.
It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate for life. The constitution of the senate in the last is less known. Circumstantial evidence makes it probable that it was not different in this particular from the two others. It is at least certain, that it had some quality or other which rendered it an anchor against popular fluctuations; and that a smaller council, drawn out of the senate, was appointed not only for life, but filled up vacancies itself. These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other. But after allowing due weight to this consideration, it may still be maintained, that there are many points of similitude which render these examples not unworthy of our attention. Many of the defects, as we have seen, which can only be supplied by a senatorial institution, are common to a numerous assembly frequently elected by the people, and to the people themselves. There are others peculiar to the former, which require the control of such an institution. The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act.
The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them. The use which has been made of this difference, in reasonings contained in former papers, will have shown that I am disposed neither to deny its existence nor to undervalue its importance. I feel the less restraint, therefore, in observing, that the position concerning the ignorance of the ancient governments on the subject of representation, is by no means precisely true in the latitude commonly given to it. Without entering into a disquisition which here would be misplaced, I will refer to a few known facts, in support of what I advance.
In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and REPRESENTING the people in their EXECUTIVE capacity.
Prior to the reform of Solon, Athens was governed by nine Archons, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AT LARGE. The degree of power delegated to them seems to be left in great obscurity. Subsequent to that period, we find an assembly, first of four, and afterwards of six hundred members, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE; and PARTIALLY representing them in their LEGISLATIVE capacity, since they were not only associated with the people in the function of making laws, but had the exclusive right of originating legislative propositions to the people. The senate of Carthage, also, whatever might be its power, or the duration of its appointment, appears to have been ELECTIVE by the suffrages of the people. Similar instances might be traced in most, if not all the popular governments of antiquity.
Lastly, in Sparta we meet with the Ephori, and in Rome with the Tribunes; two bodies, small indeed in numbers, but annually ELECTED BY THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, and considered as the REPRESENTATIVES of the people, almost in their PLENIPOTENTIARY capacity. The Cosmi of Crete were also annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, and have been considered by some authors as an institution analogous to those of Sparta and Rome, with this difference only, that in the election of that representative body the right of suffrage was communicated to a part only of the people.
From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece.
In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.
To this general answer, the general reply ought to be sufficient, that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States. But a more particular reply may be given.
Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?
If reason condemns the suspicion, the same sentence is pronounced by experience. The constitution of Maryland furnishes the most apposite example. The Senate of that State is elected, as the federal Senate will be, indirectly by the people, and for a term less by one year only than the federal Senate. It is distinguished, also, by the remarkable prerogative of filling up its own vacancies within the term of its appointment, and, at the same time, is not under the control of any such rotation as is provided for the federal Senate. There are some other lesser distinctions, which would expose the former to colorable objections, that do not lie against the latter. If the federal Senate, therefore, really contained the danger which has been so loudly proclaimed, some symptoms at least of a like danger ought by this time to have been betrayed by the Senate of Maryland, but no such symptoms have appeared. On the contrary, the jealousies at first entertained by men of the same description with those who view with terror the correspondent part of the federal Constitution, have been gradually extinguished by the progress of the experiment; and the Maryland constitution is daily deriving, from the salutary operation of this part of it, a reputation in which it will probably not be rivaled by that of any State in the Union.
But if any thing could silence the jealousies on this subject, it ought to be the British example. The Senate there instead of being elected for a term of six years, and of being unconfined to particular families or fortunes, is an hereditary assembly of opulent nobles. The House of Representatives, instead of being elected for two years, and by the whole body of the people, is elected for seven years, and, in very great proportion, by a very small proportion of the people. Here, unquestionably, ought to be seen in full display the aristocratic usurpations and tyranny which are at some future period to be exemplified in the United States. Unfortunately, however, for the anti-federal argument, the British history informs us that this hereditary assembly has not been able to defend itself against the continual encroachments of the House of Representatives; and that it no sooner lost the support of the monarch, than it was actually crushed by the weight of the popular branch.
As far as antiquity can instruct us on this subject, its examples support the reasoning which we have employed. In Sparta, the Ephori, the annual representatives of the people, were found an overmatch for the senate for life, continually gained on its authority and finally drew all power into their own hands. The Tribunes of Rome, who were the representatives of the people, prevailed, it is well known, in almost every contest with the senate for life, and in the end gained the most complete triumph over it. The fact is the more remarkable, as unanimity was required in every act of the Tribunes, even after their number was augmented to ten. It proves the irresistible force possessed by that branch of a free government, which has the people on its side. To these examples might be added that of Carthage, whose senate, according to the testimony of Polybius, instead of drawing all power into its vortex, had, at the commencement of the second Punic War, lost almost the whole of its original portion.
Besides the conclusive evidence resulting from this assemblage of facts, that the federal Senate will never be able to transform itself, by gradual usurpations, into an independent and aristocratic body, we are warranted in believing, that if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles. Against the force of the immediate representatives of the people, nothing will be able to maintain even the constitutional authority of the Senate, but such a display of enlightened policy, and attachment to the public good, as will divide with that branch of the legislature the affections and support of the entire body of the people themselves.
PUBLIUS.
Ok... to be honest i have not read this before... how bad is that??? Pretty bad... but will read it tonight and comment on it tomorrow.
Don't let the outrage get to you... but don't ignore it either.
Richard
FEDERALIST PAPER No. 63
The Senate Continued
For the Independent Journal.
Alexander Hamilton / James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
A fifth desideratum, illustrating the utility of a senate, is the want of a due sense of national character. Without a select and stable member of the government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy, proceeding from the causes already mentioned, but the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence.
An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?
Yet however requisite a sense of national character may be, it is evident that it can never be sufficiently possessed by a numerous and changeable body. It can only be found in a number so small that a sensible degree of the praise and blame of public measures may be the portion of each individual; or in an assembly so durably invested with public trust, that the pride and consequence of its members may be sensibly incorporated with the reputation and prosperity of the community. The half-yearly representatives of Rhode Island would probably have been little affected in their deliberations on the iniquitous measures of that State, by arguments drawn from the light in which such measures would be viewed by foreign nations, or even by the sister States; whilst it can scarcely be doubted that if the concurrence of a select and stable body had been necessary, a regard to national character alone would have prevented the calamities under which that misguided people is now laboring.
I add, as a SIXTH defect the want, in some important cases, of a due responsibility in the government to the people, arising from that frequency of elections which in other cases produces this responsibility. This remark will, perhaps, appear not only new, but paradoxical. It must nevertheless be acknowledged, when explained, to be as undeniable as it is important.
Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party, and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgment can be formed by the constituents. The objects of government may be divided into two general classes: the one depending on measures which have singly an immediate and sensible operation; the other depending on a succession of well-chosen and well-connected measures, which have a gradual and perhaps unobserved operation. The importance of the latter description to the collective and permanent welfare of every country, needs no explanation. And yet it is evident that an assembly elected for so short a term as to be unable to provide more than one or two links in a chain of measures, on which the general welfare may essentially depend, ought not to be answerable for the final result, any more than a steward or tenant, engaged for one year, could be justly made to answer for places or improvements which could not be accomplished in less than half a dozen years. Nor is it possible for the people to estimate the SHARE of influence which their annual assemblies may respectively have on events resulting from the mixed transactions of several years. It is sufficiently difficult to preserve a personal responsibility in the members of a NUMEROUS body, for such acts of the body as have an immediate, detached, and palpable operation on its constituents.
The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the legislative department, which, having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.
Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
It may be suggested, that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures. I am far from denying that this is a distinction of peculiar importance. I have, on the contrary, endeavored in a former paper to show, that it is one of the principal recommendations of a confederated republic. At the same time, this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions. It may even be remarked, that the same extended situation, which will exempt the people of America from some of the dangers incident to lesser republics, will expose them to the inconveniency of remaining for a longer time under the influence of those misrepresentations which the combined industry of interested men may succeed in distributing among them.
It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate for life. The constitution of the senate in the last is less known. Circumstantial evidence makes it probable that it was not different in this particular from the two others. It is at least certain, that it had some quality or other which rendered it an anchor against popular fluctuations; and that a smaller council, drawn out of the senate, was appointed not only for life, but filled up vacancies itself. These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other. But after allowing due weight to this consideration, it may still be maintained, that there are many points of similitude which render these examples not unworthy of our attention. Many of the defects, as we have seen, which can only be supplied by a senatorial institution, are common to a numerous assembly frequently elected by the people, and to the people themselves. There are others peculiar to the former, which require the control of such an institution. The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act.
The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them. The use which has been made of this difference, in reasonings contained in former papers, will have shown that I am disposed neither to deny its existence nor to undervalue its importance. I feel the less restraint, therefore, in observing, that the position concerning the ignorance of the ancient governments on the subject of representation, is by no means precisely true in the latitude commonly given to it. Without entering into a disquisition which here would be misplaced, I will refer to a few known facts, in support of what I advance.
In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and REPRESENTING the people in their EXECUTIVE capacity.
Prior to the reform of Solon, Athens was governed by nine Archons, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AT LARGE. The degree of power delegated to them seems to be left in great obscurity. Subsequent to that period, we find an assembly, first of four, and afterwards of six hundred members, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE; and PARTIALLY representing them in their LEGISLATIVE capacity, since they were not only associated with the people in the function of making laws, but had the exclusive right of originating legislative propositions to the people. The senate of Carthage, also, whatever might be its power, or the duration of its appointment, appears to have been ELECTIVE by the suffrages of the people. Similar instances might be traced in most, if not all the popular governments of antiquity.
Lastly, in Sparta we meet with the Ephori, and in Rome with the Tribunes; two bodies, small indeed in numbers, but annually ELECTED BY THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, and considered as the REPRESENTATIVES of the people, almost in their PLENIPOTENTIARY capacity. The Cosmi of Crete were also annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, and have been considered by some authors as an institution analogous to those of Sparta and Rome, with this difference only, that in the election of that representative body the right of suffrage was communicated to a part only of the people.
From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece.
In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.
To this general answer, the general reply ought to be sufficient, that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States. But a more particular reply may be given.
Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?
If reason condemns the suspicion, the same sentence is pronounced by experience. The constitution of Maryland furnishes the most apposite example. The Senate of that State is elected, as the federal Senate will be, indirectly by the people, and for a term less by one year only than the federal Senate. It is distinguished, also, by the remarkable prerogative of filling up its own vacancies within the term of its appointment, and, at the same time, is not under the control of any such rotation as is provided for the federal Senate. There are some other lesser distinctions, which would expose the former to colorable objections, that do not lie against the latter. If the federal Senate, therefore, really contained the danger which has been so loudly proclaimed, some symptoms at least of a like danger ought by this time to have been betrayed by the Senate of Maryland, but no such symptoms have appeared. On the contrary, the jealousies at first entertained by men of the same description with those who view with terror the correspondent part of the federal Constitution, have been gradually extinguished by the progress of the experiment; and the Maryland constitution is daily deriving, from the salutary operation of this part of it, a reputation in which it will probably not be rivaled by that of any State in the Union.
But if any thing could silence the jealousies on this subject, it ought to be the British example. The Senate there instead of being elected for a term of six years, and of being unconfined to particular families or fortunes, is an hereditary assembly of opulent nobles. The House of Representatives, instead of being elected for two years, and by the whole body of the people, is elected for seven years, and, in very great proportion, by a very small proportion of the people. Here, unquestionably, ought to be seen in full display the aristocratic usurpations and tyranny which are at some future period to be exemplified in the United States. Unfortunately, however, for the anti-federal argument, the British history informs us that this hereditary assembly has not been able to defend itself against the continual encroachments of the House of Representatives; and that it no sooner lost the support of the monarch, than it was actually crushed by the weight of the popular branch.
As far as antiquity can instruct us on this subject, its examples support the reasoning which we have employed. In Sparta, the Ephori, the annual representatives of the people, were found an overmatch for the senate for life, continually gained on its authority and finally drew all power into their own hands. The Tribunes of Rome, who were the representatives of the people, prevailed, it is well known, in almost every contest with the senate for life, and in the end gained the most complete triumph over it. The fact is the more remarkable, as unanimity was required in every act of the Tribunes, even after their number was augmented to ten. It proves the irresistible force possessed by that branch of a free government, which has the people on its side. To these examples might be added that of Carthage, whose senate, according to the testimony of Polybius, instead of drawing all power into its vortex, had, at the commencement of the second Punic War, lost almost the whole of its original portion.
Besides the conclusive evidence resulting from this assemblage of facts, that the federal Senate will never be able to transform itself, by gradual usurpations, into an independent and aristocratic body, we are warranted in believing, that if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles. Against the force of the immediate representatives of the people, nothing will be able to maintain even the constitutional authority of the Senate, but such a display of enlightened policy, and attachment to the public good, as will divide with that branch of the legislature the affections and support of the entire body of the people themselves.
PUBLIUS.
Friday, March 13, 2009
BEST PAINTING IN A LONG TIME
IF YOU KNOW THE CAPTION... PLEASE PASS IT ON... IT'S LINCOLN TALKING ABOUT OBAMA
HERE'S THE VET - INSUARANCE STORY
Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insuranceStory Highlights
Obama team considering plan in which vets would use private insurance for wounds
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly
Veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea
Lawmakers say plan would be rejected if it goes to Congress
By Adam Levine
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.
But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.
Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.
The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.
Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."
"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.
Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.
Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.
Don't Miss
Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries
12,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq by fall, military says
A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.
"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.
Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.
"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."
Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."
The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.
Obama team considering plan in which vets would use private insurance for wounds
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly
Veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea
Lawmakers say plan would be rejected if it goes to Congress
By Adam Levine
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.
But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.
Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.
The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.
Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."
"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.
Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.
Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.
Don't Miss
Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries
12,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq by fall, military says
A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.
"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.
Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.
"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."
Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."
The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
GOOD THING I WASN'T THERE
So what would YOU do if you were in the crowd. Or you were the soldier. Or the parent of one that didn't come back. I guess if you didn't allow the taliban in afghanistan there would be no issue and no civilians would get killed be accident (as they ALWAYS do in war.) Very different from the terrorists who specifically target women and children. Hope you enjoyed your little stay in the UK. See ya.
Richard
Home from the war... and our troops are greeted by abuse from Muslim protesters
By Michael Seamark, Andrew Levy and Matt Sandy
Last updated at 1:25 AM on 11th March 2009
Comments (151) Add to My Stories
Twice in two years they have fought in Iraq. Twelve of their regimental comrades paid the ultimate price there and in Afghanistan.
Over the past two years they have spent day after day patrolling hostile territory, where every passer-by could have a gun or a bomb.
So the 200 men of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment perhaps had a right to expect a heroes’ welcome yesterday on a homecoming parade through Luton.
Venom: Faces contorted with fury, some of the Muslim demonstrator who marred the homecoming of the Royal Anglian Regiment yesterday
Returning heroes: Members of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment parading through Luton yesterday after their tour of duty in Iraq
Instead, they were faced with the hate-filled jeers of anti-war protesters waving placards saying: ‘Anglian soldiers: Butchers of Basra,’ and ‘Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists.’
There was a furious reaction from the hundreds lining the streets to support the soldiers – known as the Poachers. Shouting ‘scum’ and ‘no surrender to the Taliban’, they turned on the Muslim demonstrators.
Police were already out in force to protect the anti-war group and arrested two men among the soldiers’ supporters.
Sickening: The protesters had printed out placards, branding the soldiers of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment 'cowards' and 'killers'
Police closely monitor the anti-Army group as the 200-strong regiment passes through Luton town centre
Last night the mother of David Hicks, a captain with the Royal Anglian Regiment who was killed in Afghanistan in August 2007, called the protests ‘extremely distressing’.
‘I felt very saddened and extremely upset,’ said Mrs Hicks, of Wokingham, Berkshire. ‘I also feel a little angry. I think every mother or father who has lost somebody in Afghanistan or Iraq would feel very difficult about this.
‘It’s very easy to tarnish all the Muslim community with the same brush, but I do wonder, if the roles were reversed, if such a protest would be allowed in a Muslim country.’
Gordon Brown condemned the protests and ministers and senior politicians branded the demonstration ‘insulting’ and ‘sordid.’
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox said: ‘This is offensive, appalling and disgraceful.
Elsewhere along the route hundreds of townsfolk turned out to clap and cheer on the soldiers
Tempers flared as pro-Army supporters took offence at the small protest and police were forced to separate the groups
'It is only because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces that these people live in a free society where they are able to make their sordid protests.’
Luton South Labour MP Margaret Moran called for an inquiry into the way police handled the incident.
She said: ‘Calling people baby-killers and the rest seems to amount to provocation of the worst kind when these lads and lasses have risked their lives for the freedom these people enjoy. It seems to me this amounted to huge provocation and was potentially racially divisive.’
But the Muslim protesters were unrepentant. Teacher Sayful Islam, self-styled leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun – the now-banned radical organisation led by Sheikh Omar Bakri – said: ‘The anger has been rising. The parade was the final insult.
‘They have killed, maimed and raped thousands of innocent people. They can’t come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community. What do they have to be proud of?’
Posters were displayed accusing the Army of maiming babies and innocent civilians in Iraq
Counter attack: A placard spells out backing for our troops
The battalion is based in Germany, but Bedfordshire is one of the areas where it recruits, along with neighbouring Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire.
Trouble flared as the soldiers marched to a meeting with the Duke of Gloucester, the regiment’s colonel-in-chief, and local dignitaries.
He said:' The anger has been rising up. The parade was the final insult.
'They have killed, maimed and raped thousands of innocent people. They can't come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community. What do they have to be proud of?'
Leaflets urging Muslims to demonstrate against the soldiers' homecoming had been distributed around Luton earlier in the week.
Under the headline 'Criminals' it railed against the troops' 'audacity' at marching though the town centre and accused them of having 'blood on their hands.'
View from behind the veil: A group of Muslim women at the demonstration
Sign of dissent: An anti-government message
It read 'Muhammad said :"He among you who sees a munkar (evil) should change it with his hand. If he can not do that , then with his tongue(by speaking out against it)".'
It finished with the words:' We urge the Muslims of Luton not to stay silent against these murderers of Muslim men, women and children and to do what we as Muslims have been obliged to do and speak against an open evil.'
Police had penned the protesters into a small area and two lines of officers separated them from a large number of local people, waving Union and St George’s flags. At one point a man climbed onto a roof and threw a packet of bacon at the Muslim group.
Bedfordshire police said the Muslim protesters were later ‘escorted from the area to a safe place to disperse’.
The force said last night: ‘Everything that went on will be examined and if any offences have been committed then we will arrest them.’
An Army spokesman said the battalion, which is due to take part in a similar march in Watford today, was ‘deeply touched’ by the strong support shown by the people of Luton.
He said: ‘There is no better boost to a soldier than to see hundreds of people turn out to watch them on parade.'
The regiment's tragic roll callThe Royal Anglian Regiment has lost ten soldiers during the Afghan conflict and two during the Iraq conflict.
Those killed in Afghanistan are:
Private Aaron McClure, 19, from Ipswich, Suffolk; Private Robert Foster, 19, from Harlow, Essex; and Private John Thrumble, 21, from Chelmsford, Essex. All three were killed in a ‘ friendlyfire’ attack by a U.S. F15 fighter plane in Helmand on August 23, 2007.
Captain David Hicks, 26, from Wokingham, Berkshire, was killed on August 11, 2007, when a patrol base in Helmand was attacked by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.
Private Tony Rawson, 27, from Dagenham, Essex, was killed on August 10, 2007, when his ‘attack’ patrol came under fire from the Taliban in Helmand.
Lance Corporal Alex Hawkins, 22, from East Dereham, Norfolk, was killed on July 25, 2007, by an explosion as his patrol returned to base in Helmand.
Corporal Darren Bonner, 31, from Gorleston, Norfolk, was killed on May 28, 2007, by an explosion when his convoy was attacked in Helmand.
Lance Corporal George Davey, 23, from Beccles, Suffolk, shot himself during ‘a tragic firearms accident’ in Helmand on May 20. 2007.
Private Chris Gray, 19, from Leicester, was killed during a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand on April 13, 2007.
Private Darren George, 23, from Pirbright, Surrey, was shot by a colleague who had a ‘dizzy spell’ while handling a machine gun in Kabul on April 9, 2002.
Those killed in Iraq are:
Private Adam Morris, 19, from Leicestershire; and Private Joseva Lewaicei, 25, from Fiji. Both were killed by a roadside bomb on patrol in Basra on May 13, 2006.
Richard
Home from the war... and our troops are greeted by abuse from Muslim protesters
By Michael Seamark, Andrew Levy and Matt Sandy
Last updated at 1:25 AM on 11th March 2009
Comments (151) Add to My Stories
Twice in two years they have fought in Iraq. Twelve of their regimental comrades paid the ultimate price there and in Afghanistan.
Over the past two years they have spent day after day patrolling hostile territory, where every passer-by could have a gun or a bomb.
So the 200 men of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment perhaps had a right to expect a heroes’ welcome yesterday on a homecoming parade through Luton.
Venom: Faces contorted with fury, some of the Muslim demonstrator who marred the homecoming of the Royal Anglian Regiment yesterday
Returning heroes: Members of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment parading through Luton yesterday after their tour of duty in Iraq
Instead, they were faced with the hate-filled jeers of anti-war protesters waving placards saying: ‘Anglian soldiers: Butchers of Basra,’ and ‘Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists.’
There was a furious reaction from the hundreds lining the streets to support the soldiers – known as the Poachers. Shouting ‘scum’ and ‘no surrender to the Taliban’, they turned on the Muslim demonstrators.
Police were already out in force to protect the anti-war group and arrested two men among the soldiers’ supporters.
Sickening: The protesters had printed out placards, branding the soldiers of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment 'cowards' and 'killers'
Police closely monitor the anti-Army group as the 200-strong regiment passes through Luton town centre
Last night the mother of David Hicks, a captain with the Royal Anglian Regiment who was killed in Afghanistan in August 2007, called the protests ‘extremely distressing’.
‘I felt very saddened and extremely upset,’ said Mrs Hicks, of Wokingham, Berkshire. ‘I also feel a little angry. I think every mother or father who has lost somebody in Afghanistan or Iraq would feel very difficult about this.
‘It’s very easy to tarnish all the Muslim community with the same brush, but I do wonder, if the roles were reversed, if such a protest would be allowed in a Muslim country.’
Gordon Brown condemned the protests and ministers and senior politicians branded the demonstration ‘insulting’ and ‘sordid.’
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox said: ‘This is offensive, appalling and disgraceful.
Elsewhere along the route hundreds of townsfolk turned out to clap and cheer on the soldiers
Tempers flared as pro-Army supporters took offence at the small protest and police were forced to separate the groups
'It is only because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces that these people live in a free society where they are able to make their sordid protests.’
Luton South Labour MP Margaret Moran called for an inquiry into the way police handled the incident.
She said: ‘Calling people baby-killers and the rest seems to amount to provocation of the worst kind when these lads and lasses have risked their lives for the freedom these people enjoy. It seems to me this amounted to huge provocation and was potentially racially divisive.’
But the Muslim protesters were unrepentant. Teacher Sayful Islam, self-styled leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun – the now-banned radical organisation led by Sheikh Omar Bakri – said: ‘The anger has been rising. The parade was the final insult.
‘They have killed, maimed and raped thousands of innocent people. They can’t come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community. What do they have to be proud of?’
Posters were displayed accusing the Army of maiming babies and innocent civilians in Iraq
Counter attack: A placard spells out backing for our troops
The battalion is based in Germany, but Bedfordshire is one of the areas where it recruits, along with neighbouring Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire.
Trouble flared as the soldiers marched to a meeting with the Duke of Gloucester, the regiment’s colonel-in-chief, and local dignitaries.
He said:' The anger has been rising up. The parade was the final insult.
'They have killed, maimed and raped thousands of innocent people. They can't come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community. What do they have to be proud of?'
Leaflets urging Muslims to demonstrate against the soldiers' homecoming had been distributed around Luton earlier in the week.
Under the headline 'Criminals' it railed against the troops' 'audacity' at marching though the town centre and accused them of having 'blood on their hands.'
View from behind the veil: A group of Muslim women at the demonstration
Sign of dissent: An anti-government message
It read 'Muhammad said :"He among you who sees a munkar (evil) should change it with his hand. If he can not do that , then with his tongue(by speaking out against it)".'
It finished with the words:' We urge the Muslims of Luton not to stay silent against these murderers of Muslim men, women and children and to do what we as Muslims have been obliged to do and speak against an open evil.'
Police had penned the protesters into a small area and two lines of officers separated them from a large number of local people, waving Union and St George’s flags. At one point a man climbed onto a roof and threw a packet of bacon at the Muslim group.
Bedfordshire police said the Muslim protesters were later ‘escorted from the area to a safe place to disperse’.
The force said last night: ‘Everything that went on will be examined and if any offences have been committed then we will arrest them.’
An Army spokesman said the battalion, which is due to take part in a similar march in Watford today, was ‘deeply touched’ by the strong support shown by the people of Luton.
He said: ‘There is no better boost to a soldier than to see hundreds of people turn out to watch them on parade.'
The regiment's tragic roll callThe Royal Anglian Regiment has lost ten soldiers during the Afghan conflict and two during the Iraq conflict.
Those killed in Afghanistan are:
Private Aaron McClure, 19, from Ipswich, Suffolk; Private Robert Foster, 19, from Harlow, Essex; and Private John Thrumble, 21, from Chelmsford, Essex. All three were killed in a ‘ friendlyfire’ attack by a U.S. F15 fighter plane in Helmand on August 23, 2007.
Captain David Hicks, 26, from Wokingham, Berkshire, was killed on August 11, 2007, when a patrol base in Helmand was attacked by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.
Private Tony Rawson, 27, from Dagenham, Essex, was killed on August 10, 2007, when his ‘attack’ patrol came under fire from the Taliban in Helmand.
Lance Corporal Alex Hawkins, 22, from East Dereham, Norfolk, was killed on July 25, 2007, by an explosion as his patrol returned to base in Helmand.
Corporal Darren Bonner, 31, from Gorleston, Norfolk, was killed on May 28, 2007, by an explosion when his convoy was attacked in Helmand.
Lance Corporal George Davey, 23, from Beccles, Suffolk, shot himself during ‘a tragic firearms accident’ in Helmand on May 20. 2007.
Private Chris Gray, 19, from Leicester, was killed during a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand on April 13, 2007.
Private Darren George, 23, from Pirbright, Surrey, was shot by a colleague who had a ‘dizzy spell’ while handling a machine gun in Kabul on April 9, 2002.
Those killed in Iraq are:
Private Adam Morris, 19, from Leicestershire; and Private Joseva Lewaicei, 25, from Fiji. Both were killed by a roadside bomb on patrol in Basra on May 13, 2006.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
PHIL BERG VS. BARACK OBAMA
02/24/09: PRESS RELEASE - Berg on Michael Savage Nation - and Status of Three [3] Pending Cases
(Contact information and PDF at end)
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/24/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of Constitutional "qualifications/eligibility" to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama announced today that he will be on Michael Savage Nation tonight at 6:30 p.m. E.S.T.
Berg stated, “I am thrilled to be on Savage Nation as Michael Savage has a widespread audience [10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week - on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, or hundreds of other stations nationwide] and Michael asks the tough questions. The last time I appeared our dialogue regarding Obama was so great that I turned out to be the longest guest ever, being on for 1 ½ hours.
My appearance will help in our efforts to spread the word as the major media continues to refuse to cover this story – the most significant story in the history of our country; the biggest "HOAX" perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office.”
Berg continued, “I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama 'HOAX,' and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama 'HOAX,' that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally 'qualified/eligible' to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) 'Birth Certificate;' that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his 'adopted' name of 'Barry Soetoro' from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States."
Berg concluded, "I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in 'our' U.S.A., for 'our' forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President."
The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my challenge to Obama's lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.
Also, I am preparing to file a 4th case - Quo Warranto [challenge person in office - that does not meet the qualifications].
As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue - having filed my lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention
Status of Cases:
Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and FEC filed on 2/17/09 (Appellees)
This is the case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA
Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of "standing" by Philip J. Berg
This is case that I bypassed Third Circuit to U.S. Supreme Court - where U.S. Supreme Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.
However, case is still alive in Third Circuit.
Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
Berg filed Motion to Unseal - decision pending.
Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09 after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss
Berg also filed Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.
Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama - must he obey an Order by a legal President or disobey the illegal Order by a Constitutionally ineligible/unqualified "Usurper" President.
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com
(Contact information and PDF at end)
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/24/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of Constitutional "qualifications/eligibility" to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama announced today that he will be on Michael Savage Nation tonight at 6:30 p.m. E.S.T.
Berg stated, “I am thrilled to be on Savage Nation as Michael Savage has a widespread audience [10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week - on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, or hundreds of other stations nationwide] and Michael asks the tough questions. The last time I appeared our dialogue regarding Obama was so great that I turned out to be the longest guest ever, being on for 1 ½ hours.
My appearance will help in our efforts to spread the word as the major media continues to refuse to cover this story – the most significant story in the history of our country; the biggest "HOAX" perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office.”
Berg continued, “I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama 'HOAX,' and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama 'HOAX,' that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally 'qualified/eligible' to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) 'Birth Certificate;' that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his 'adopted' name of 'Barry Soetoro' from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States."
Berg concluded, "I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in 'our' U.S.A., for 'our' forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President."
The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my challenge to Obama's lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.
Also, I am preparing to file a 4th case - Quo Warranto [challenge person in office - that does not meet the qualifications].
As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue - having filed my lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention
Status of Cases:
Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and FEC filed on 2/17/09 (Appellees)
This is the case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA
Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of "standing" by Philip J. Berg
This is case that I bypassed Third Circuit to U.S. Supreme Court - where U.S. Supreme Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.
However, case is still alive in Third Circuit.
Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
Berg filed Motion to Unseal - decision pending.
Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09 after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss
Berg also filed Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.
Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama - must he obey an Order by a legal President or disobey the illegal Order by a Constitutionally ineligible/unqualified "Usurper" President.
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com
THE PROPOSED GUN LAW
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.
Tucked away in committee on Capitol Hill is a firearm licensing bill that Second Amendment advocates worry may just be waiting for the right "Columbine moment" to emerge and effectively ban handguns in the U.S.
As WND reported, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., sponsored H.R. 45, an extensive licensure law that creates a national database of current firearm owners, requires psychiatric testing and fingerprinting to obtain a license and places new restrictions on gun use and storage.
Mike Hammond, legal advisor with Gun Owners of America, told WND that H.R. 45 gives the federal government so much power over gun ownership, that the wrong administration could use it to "bring gun ownership in America to an end."
"It takes semi-automatic firearms and handguns – the guns people use for personal self-defense," Hammond said, "and sets up a licensure system, that is, the government would have to give you permission to own a gun. The government can therefore also deny that permission, and it would mean an anti-gun administration could use it to effectively ban most guns from private ownership.
"Even if you are willing to undergo a psychiatric exam, be fingerprinted and do what the bill requires to obtain a license, the law still requires the guns be unloaded and locked up," Hammond added. "It renders the gun practically unavailable for self-defense."
And even though H.R. 45 has remained dormant in the House Judiciary Committee since it was introduced, Hammond told WND that his organization is worried it may not stay there.
"Our concern is that Rep. Rush comes from same political machine that Barack Obama comes from," Hammond said. "So we have a real concern that Rush's introduction of this reflects the thinking of an Obama administration. And while we don't think this bill will be the first thing that the president pushes, before the Obama administration uses a Columbine incident to bring the bill alive, while it's still lying on its back [in committee], we want to put a stake through its heart."
Hammond summarized, "Ultimately if a license system is in place, any anti-gun administration can come after your guns."
H.R. 45, alternatively known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," is named after an Illinois teenager killed by gunshot.
According the bill's text, "On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting."
The bill then argues that interstate firearm trafficking and children dying from gun violence create legitimate cause for the federal government to monitor gun ownership and transfers in new ways.
The bill claims its purpose is "to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth."
If passed, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" – defined as any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that takes an ammunition clip – without a "Blair Holt" license.
To obtain a "Blair Holt" license, an application must be made that includes a photo, address, all previous aliases, thumb print, completion of a written firearm safety test and release of mental health records to the attorney general.
Further, the bill makes it illegal to transfer ownership of a qualifying firearm to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector. Exceptions to this rule include transfer to family members by gift or bequest and loans, not to exceed 30 days, of a firearm for lawful purposes "between persons who are personally known to each other."
The bill also requires qualifying firearm owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days.
And if a minor obtains a weapon and injures someone with it, the owner of the gun – if deemed to have failed to meet certain safety requirements – faces a multiple-year jail sentence.
H.R. 45 is a resurfacing of 2007's H.R. 2666, which contained much of the same language and was co-sponsored by 15 other representatives and Barack Obama's current chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. H.R. 2666 was also assigned to the House Judiciary committee, where no action was taken.
H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors and is likewise assigned to the House Judiciary committee.
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.
Tucked away in committee on Capitol Hill is a firearm licensing bill that Second Amendment advocates worry may just be waiting for the right "Columbine moment" to emerge and effectively ban handguns in the U.S.
As WND reported, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., sponsored H.R. 45, an extensive licensure law that creates a national database of current firearm owners, requires psychiatric testing and fingerprinting to obtain a license and places new restrictions on gun use and storage.
Mike Hammond, legal advisor with Gun Owners of America, told WND that H.R. 45 gives the federal government so much power over gun ownership, that the wrong administration could use it to "bring gun ownership in America to an end."
"It takes semi-automatic firearms and handguns – the guns people use for personal self-defense," Hammond said, "and sets up a licensure system, that is, the government would have to give you permission to own a gun. The government can therefore also deny that permission, and it would mean an anti-gun administration could use it to effectively ban most guns from private ownership.
"Even if you are willing to undergo a psychiatric exam, be fingerprinted and do what the bill requires to obtain a license, the law still requires the guns be unloaded and locked up," Hammond added. "It renders the gun practically unavailable for self-defense."
And even though H.R. 45 has remained dormant in the House Judiciary Committee since it was introduced, Hammond told WND that his organization is worried it may not stay there.
"Our concern is that Rep. Rush comes from same political machine that Barack Obama comes from," Hammond said. "So we have a real concern that Rush's introduction of this reflects the thinking of an Obama administration. And while we don't think this bill will be the first thing that the president pushes, before the Obama administration uses a Columbine incident to bring the bill alive, while it's still lying on its back [in committee], we want to put a stake through its heart."
Hammond summarized, "Ultimately if a license system is in place, any anti-gun administration can come after your guns."
H.R. 45, alternatively known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," is named after an Illinois teenager killed by gunshot.
According the bill's text, "On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting."
The bill then argues that interstate firearm trafficking and children dying from gun violence create legitimate cause for the federal government to monitor gun ownership and transfers in new ways.
The bill claims its purpose is "to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth."
If passed, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" – defined as any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that takes an ammunition clip – without a "Blair Holt" license.
To obtain a "Blair Holt" license, an application must be made that includes a photo, address, all previous aliases, thumb print, completion of a written firearm safety test and release of mental health records to the attorney general.
Further, the bill makes it illegal to transfer ownership of a qualifying firearm to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector. Exceptions to this rule include transfer to family members by gift or bequest and loans, not to exceed 30 days, of a firearm for lawful purposes "between persons who are personally known to each other."
The bill also requires qualifying firearm owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days.
And if a minor obtains a weapon and injures someone with it, the owner of the gun – if deemed to have failed to meet certain safety requirements – faces a multiple-year jail sentence.
H.R. 45 is a resurfacing of 2007's H.R. 2666, which contained much of the same language and was co-sponsored by 15 other representatives and Barack Obama's current chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. H.R. 2666 was also assigned to the House Judiciary committee, where no action was taken.
H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors and is likewise assigned to the House Judiciary committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
